Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5245-H5282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4733.

{time} 1826

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) had
been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from page 6, line
6 through page 8, line 7.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Hulshof); amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest); a second amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first in this series.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hulshof

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 262, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 334]

AYES--165

Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Baca
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Blagojevich
Bliley
Boehner
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clyburn
Coburn
Cooksey
Costello
Crane
Cubin
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dooley
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Foley
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Luther
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nadler
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Riley
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stark
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wynn

NOES--262

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Larson
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Scott
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Cook
Hinojosa
Lazio
Markey
McIntosh
Thomas
Vento

{time} 1852

Messrs. SMITH of Washington, CUMMINGS, HALL of Texas, LEWIS of

[[Page H5246]]

California, KUCINICH, WEYGAND, ACKERMAN, ALLEN, ROHRABACHER, CONYERS,
MEEKS of New York, TOWNS, HAYWORTH, FORD, CROWLEY, HERGER and MEEHAN,
and Ms. SANCHEZ, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BARR of Georgia, BURTON of Indiana, EVANS, DeFAZIO, COBURN,
LEWIS of Georgia, DAVIS of Illinois, SABO, MINGE, TIAHRT, SPENCE, FARR
of California, UDALL of Colorado, McNULTY, and BERMAN, and Ms. LEE
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

announcement by the chairman pro tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
532, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.

amendment offered by Mr. gilchrest

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 273, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 335]

AYES--153

Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Ehlers
Ewing
Farr
Foley
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Riley
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf

NOES--273

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Cook
Hinojosa
Knollenberg
Lazio
Markey
McIntosh
Thomas
Vento

{time} 1900

Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GRAHAM, ROYCE, and COOKSEY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to allowed to speak out of
order for 1 minute.)

Expressing Gratitude for Support of Members of Congress and People
Across America During Recent Family Tragedy

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak out of order for a
few minutes to express my gratitude to the Members of this
distinguished body and to the thousands of individuals and families
across my district and in this great Nation who have offered my family
and me their support, prayers, and love for the loss of our son and
brother, B.J.
It is often said that the true measure of any institution is how it
comes together for one of its own in times of trouble. As I stand here
tonight with a broken heart, I am reminded of the strength and
greatness in each of the Members, their congressional staffs, and the
men and women who work each day with us in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Not only have they displayed their kindness to Laurie, Ken, and me,
but also to the Menominee community when so many Members traveled to
our hometown to attend B.J.'s funeral. While Members' trips have been
reported as a Who's Who in Congress, led by the Speaker, the Democratic
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and Tipper Gore,
the newspaper failed to mention the personal sacrifice each Member
made, failed to mention that a number were left standing on the tarmac
because there was no room on the plane. The newspaper failed to
recognize the kindness of this House, which is found in its Members.
B.J. realized the greatness of the U.S. House of Representatives, as
he often told me that I could not leave the House until he was 25, so
he could succeed me. B.J. knew that Article 1, Section 2 of the United
States Constitution states, ``No person shall be a representative who
shall not have attained the age of 25 years.''

[[Page H5247]]

He told Laurie shortly before he died that he felt he could be an
even better Congressman than his dad. I am sure he could have been.
Earlier today when I announced my reelection plans for a fifth term, I
know B.J. was pleased.
We have received thousands of calls and letters from Members and
their families, friends, neighbors, even complete strangers. This
outpouring of support has given us strength. It has renewed our faith
in the goodness of people and in the love of friends and neighbors. The
love, support, and understanding that we have received and still
continue to receive are blessings for which we will be forever
grateful.
I would like to take a moment and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who came to
Michigan immediately after B.J. died. These Members and I, we all live
together here in D.C., not as Democrats or Republicans, but as
individuals who have profound respect and love for one another. They
are a great source of comfort for me, Laurie, and Ken.
My family and I ask that each Member also keeps in mind and close to
heart the friends and classmates of B.J. at Menominee High School as
they deal with this tragedy. They need all our love, care, and support.
B.J. was their class leader. He would have been president of the
student body this coming year.
B.J. was concerned when the student leadership team could not attend
out-of-town functions or conferences because there was never enough
money in the student government budget. So in B.J.'s memory we have
established the B.J. Fund, to finance in part student participation in
leadership programs.
Through the generosity of many individuals, organizations, and some
Members of this House, I am proud to say we have over $35,000 in the
B.J. Fund. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make my son larger than what
he was in life, but B.J. was one of those people who we remember they
were here. He was blessed with a personality, charm, and charisma. That
was B.J. His life is a harsh reminder of how fragile life is, for we do
not know what life holds for any of us.
For Laurie, Ken, and me, B.J. will be forever in our hearts, on our
minds, and on our lips. Tonight we would like to express our heartfelt
thanks for Members' support.

Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the next
vote will be 5 minutes.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 281, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 336]

AYES--145

Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Ehlers
Ewing
Farr
Foley
Fossella
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kingston
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ose
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weller
Whitfield
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--281

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--8

Cook
Hinojosa
Lazio
Markey
McIntosh
Moakley
Peterson (PA)
Vento

{time} 1914

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further
amendments shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman and the ranking member or their designees and the following
further amendments which may be offered only by the Member designated
in the order of the House or a designee, or the Member who has caused
it to be printed or a designee, shall be considered read, debatable for
the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
opponent, shall not be

[[Page H5248]]

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question:
The amendment printed in House Report 106-701;
The following additional amendment, which shall be debatable for 30
minutes: Mr. Salmon, regarding solar energy;
The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for 20
minutes:
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin regarding National Ignition Facility; and
The amendment printed in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII, and numbered 1;
The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for 10
minutes:
Mr. Gekas, regarding energy independence;
Mr. Stearns, regarding Secretary of Energy travel;
Mr. Stearns, regarding Secretary of Energy travel before January 20
of 2001;
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin regarding construction of National Ignition
Facility;
Mr. Hansen, regarding nuclear waste storage;
Mr. Camp, regarding Strategic Petroleum Reserve exchanges;
Mr. Ryun of Kansas, regarding compensation of Department of Energy
employees;
Mr. Ney, regarding the Appalachian Regional Commission;
Ms. Brown of Florida, regarding alternative energy sources; and
The amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII, and numbered 2,
3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 8, line 8, through page 10, line 18,
is as follows:

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
throughout the United States resulting from work performed as
part of the Nation's early atomic energy program,
$140,000,000, to remain available until expended.

General Expenses

For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and
offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal
Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center
Support Activity, the Water Resources Support Center, and
headquarters support functions at the USACE Finance Center,
$149,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no part of any other appropriation provided in title I
of this Act shall be available to fund the activities of the
Office of the Chief of Engineers or the executive direction
and management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That none of these funds shall be available to
support an office of congressional affairs within the
executive office of the Chief of Engineers.

Revolving Fund

Amounts in the Revolving Fund are available for the costs
of relocating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters
to office space in the General Accounting Office headquarters
building in Washington, D.C.

Administrative Provisions

Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); and during the current fiscal year the Revolving
Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase
(not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Sec. 101. 16 U.S.C. 777c(a) is amended in the second
sentence by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2001''.
Sec. 102. (a) The Secretary of the Army shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Grand Prairie, Texas, wherein the
City agrees to assume all of the responsibilities of the
Trinity River Authority of Texas under Contract #DACW63-76-C-
0166, other than financial responsibilities, except as
provided for in subsection (c) of this section. The Trinity
River Authority shall be relieved of all of its financial
responsibilities under the Contract as of the date the
Secretary of the Army enters into the agreement with the
City.
(b) In consideration of the agreement referred to in
subsection (a), the City shall pay the Federal Government a
total of $4,290,000 in two installments, one in the amount of
$2,150,000, which shall be due and payable no later than
December 1, 2000, and one in the amount of $2,140,000, which
shall be due and payable no later than December 1, 2003.
(c) The agreement executed pursuant to subsection (a) shall
include a provision requiring the City to assume all costs
associated with operation and maintenance of the recreation
facilities included in the Contract referred to in that
subsection.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for purposes of a colloquy.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the able gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have risen to engage the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development Appropriations, in a colloquy. As the gentleman and
the ranking member knows, I have an ongoing interest in the enlarged
use of biomass materials as a source of domestic energy. Serving on the
Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, I have always been somewhat
puzzled that biomass fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel have not
become a more substantial energy resource for our country to displace
our unwise reliance on imported sources of energy.
Mr. Chairman, it appears that we have a win-win-win situation if
biomass fuels can provide a domestic energy source to help relieve our
dependence on foreign oil, if we maintain it as a renewable resource
that will last as long as we can grow crops, and it will provide a new
and substantial market for our farmers, especially if linked to on-farm
storage of inputs and broadly competitive processing and distribution
arrangements.
One issue that seems to stand in the way of additional progress in
the development of biomass fuels is the reluctance of the Departments
of Energy and Agriculture to work together to move biofuels research
and development forward. I assume that that lack of coordination is the
product of bureaucratic inertia and can be overcome with some well-
directed prodding by this Congress.
So if the Chairman and ranking member agree, I hope that our two
subcommittees and we as leaders in the Congress can work together to
find ways to encourage cooperation between the Departments of
Agriculture and Energy in the development of biomass fuels. I would
suggest we ask the Departments to report back to the committee before
we consider next year's appropriation bill on suggested initiatives
that can be undertaken to increase the production and use of biofuels,
including recommendations for engaging more broadly the U.S. farm
sector in the storage, production, processing, and distribution of
biofuel inputs and outputs.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we would be very happy, and I would be
very happy, to work with the gentlewoman on this issue and, of course,
with the committee upon which she serves.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness
to work with me. I want to again thank the able gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for yielding me this time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for purposes
of a colloquy.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), our ranking member, for yielding me this time for purposes
of a colloquy. As the ranking member and the chairman of the
subcommittee understand, I have been a strong proponent of the
Environmental Management Program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
This is a program that has habitat restoration and long-term resource
monitoring to better preserve and protect the Mississippi River Basin.
I had originally intended to offer an amendment with appropriate
offsets in order to increase funding for this vitally important
program, but out of the respect for the committee and the work that
they have done, and the

[[Page H5249]]

302(b) allocations that they have had to work within, and the
difficulty, frankly, of finding appropriate offsets without impinging
upon other vitally important programs in this bill, I decided not to
offer the amendment.
We do have allies on the Senate side that are also very strong
proponents of the Environmental Management Program. As the ranking
member and chairman undoubtedly recall, EMP was permanently
reauthorized last year; and it was authorized from a $19 million level
up to $33 million. This year, the committee I think did a wonderful job
of trying to increase funding from $19 million for this fiscal year up
to $21 million that is contained in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we were hoping as part of the bipartisan Mississippi
River Caucus to get the funding up to around $24 million, $25 million,
which we feel would be sufficient for the program to absorb the new
cost, yet still be able to accomplish the objectives that exist under
the program; and that is still our goal. We are hoping that given the
greater flexibility over the allocation numbers as they are in the
Senate, we are going to be able to achieve increased funding from that
side. Based on conversations I have now had with the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and also the gentleman from California (Mr.
Packard), ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee, we are
hoping to get a more favorable outcome in conference, if we are more
successful on the Senate side for EMP.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have discussed this
previously, and we certainly would like to work with the gentleman in
trying to find additional funds for this project in conference with the
Senate. If the Senate has a higher figure, there is a good chance that
we could find a way to come up from what the House level is.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's commitment to the program, his leadership on the issue, and
look forward to working with the gentleman in the future on this.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would also agree. Obviously, there is
no guarantee at all because the budget is so very tight. But I do
appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
And as the chairman indicated, we would be happy to try to work with
the gentleman.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for purposes of a colloquy.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky) for yielding me this time. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, it seems like I go these long spells and do not say
much, but today I come asking for the consideration of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Packard). I had intended, I had hoped today, to
offer an amendment which would have added $4.3 million to the
Environment, Health, and Safety section of title III of the bill. This
addition would have matched the administration's request for important
health screening and treatment for workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant in Burlington, Iowa, which I am proud to represent.
Unfortunately, this was not accepted by the committee. I know, from
what we have discussed earlier, I understand the dilemma that the
committee is in.
Mr. Chairman, I will say that from 1946 until 1975, the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission operated a portion of this plant near Burlington to
assemble nuclear weapons, employing approximately 4,000 people, 4,000
workers. A recent review by the EPA of documents provided by the
Department of Energy has revealed the release of radioactive isotopes
and hazardous chemicals at the plant during this time period. This
development raises serious concerns regarding the health and welfare of
the workers at the plant. There is a tremendous need for this funding
to properly screen and treat those that were exposed to harmful
elements.
Funding for screening and treatment at this plant at Burlington is
not the only important screening activity which will not be funded in
this bill. Medical monitoring of more than 1,000 workers who were
employed at Amchitka, Alaska, during the time that the U.S. Government
maintained a nuclear testing facility on the island will be canceled.
The project identifies, locates and provides targeted medical screening
for those workers.
Other sites such as Pantex in Texas and Los Alamos in New Mexico will
not be able to begin medical monitoring projects because the funding is
not available.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask of the gentleman from California (Chairman
Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking
member, and so on and all the rest, that when they go to conference,
and any other opportunity that they may have, I ask that they consider
the service the workers in these ammunition plants, these tests sites,
did for our country during this Cold War period. Their noble service is
as responsible as some of us who wore the uniform, some of us that make
the decisions we have to make in operations such as this now.
Mr. Chairman, these Cold War warriors need our country's help to deal
with the health problems they have incurred due to their service. So I
hope that these gentlemen and my colleagues in the House will work with
me and others to get this restored during conference committee or any
other possible opportunity. That is my request that I come to the floor
with today.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and particularly
his concern over the health and safety of those who have worked in his
district and continue to do so. I for one, and I think the gentleman
from California (Chairman Packard) shares my concern, appreciate the
gentleman bringing it to the committee's attention.
As I indicated to the gentleman from Wisconsin, there is no guarantee
in this process, except the sincerity of our efforts. And I do
appreciate the gentleman's commitment very much.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response,
and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his nodding
response.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project

central utah project completion account

For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $38,724,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $19,158,000 shall be deposited into
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account:
Provided, That of the amounts deposited into that account,
$5,000,000 shall be considered the Federal contribution
authorized by paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act and $14,158,000 shall be available to the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to carry
out activities authorized under that Act.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,216,000, to remain available until expended.

Bureau of Reclamation

The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:

water and related resources

(including transfer of funds)

For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$635,777,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$1,916,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $39,467,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; and of which not to

[[Page H5250]]

exceed $200,000 is for financial assistance for the
preparation of cooperative drought contingency plans under
Title II of Public Law 102-250: Provided, That such transfers
may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of
the total appropriated, the amount for program activities
that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of
Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C.
460l-6a(i) shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43
U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the same purposes as the sums
appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That funds
available for expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation
Drainage Program may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation
for site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided
further, That section 301 of Public Law 102-250, Reclamation
States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is
amended further by inserting ``2000, and 2001'' in lieu of
``and 2000'': Provided further, That the amount authorized
for Minidoka Project North Side Pumping Division, Idaho, by
section 5 of Public Law 81-864, is increased by $2,805,000:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for closure of
the Auburn Dam, California, diversion tunnel or restoration
of the American River channel through the Auburn Dam
construction site.

bureau of reclamation loan program account

For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $8,944,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43
U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended:
Provided further, That these funds are available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $27,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
sums appropriated, the amount of program activities that can
be financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from
that Fund.

central valley project restoration fund

For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $38,382,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), 3405(f ), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau
of Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full
amount of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.

policy and administration

For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$47,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.

administrative provision

Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed four passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 201. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to purchase or lease water
in the Middle Rio Grande or the Carlsbad Projects in New
Mexico unless said purchase or lease is in compliance with
the purchase requirements of section 202 of Public Law 106-
60.
Sec. 202. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
assess and collect annually from Central Valley Project (CVP)
water and power contractors the sum of $540,000 (June 2000
price levels), and to remit that amount annually to the
Trinity Public Utilities District (TPUD). This assessment
shall be payable 70% by CVP Preference Power Customers and
30% by CVP Water Contractors. The CVP Water Contractor share
of this assessment shall be collected by the Secretary
through established Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
Operation and Maintenance ratesetting practices. The CVP
Power Contractor share of this assessment shall be assessed
by Reclamation to the Western Area Power Administration,
Sierra Nevada Region (Western), and collected by Western
through established power ratesetting practices. The
authorized amount collected shall be paid annually to the
TPUD.

Mr. PACKARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the title II be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open for amendments at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Supply

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy supply, and uranium
supply and enrichment activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
not to exceed 17 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only, $576,482,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, in addition, royalties received to compensate
the Department of Energy for its participation in the First-
Of-A-Kind-Engineering program shall be credited to this
account to be available until September 30, 2002, for the
purposes of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
activities.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Salmon

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Salmon:
Page 16, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
Page 21, line 19, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $46,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin I would like to express my gratitude to
the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for graciously
accepting this amendment. He and his staff have been more than generous
with their ideas, their time; and thanks to their efforts, we have
agreed to fund renewable energy programs well above this year's
subcommittee mark and above final funding levels for the last 2 years.
This is particularly notable given this year's limited House Energy
and Water budget allocation. Again, I thank the gentleman. We will go
golfing together when we get out of here.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to offer special thanks to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his assistance and support of
this amendment. His outstanding work is much appreciated by the
renewable energy community, and myself, and the future of this planet.
I thank the gentleman very much.
The amendment that the gentleman from Colorado and I are proposing
today is a timely and responsible effort to increase funding for
renewable energy for research and development programs. The amendment
adds $40 million to the renewable energy budget. This funding is
necessary to ensure continued quality research and development that is
so vital to our national security.
The amendment is offset by a reduction in contractor travel. Though
the committee cut funding for this program last year, abuses still
persist. Additionally, given the choice between travel dollars for
contractors and research dollars for the future of America, it is clear
that we must choose the latter.
Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in declaring that the time for
renewable energy is now. Americans are paying more for fuel right now
than at any time in our history. Dependency on foreign oil is at all-
time highs. We fought a war less than 10 years ago over threats to our
oil supply, and we agreed then we had to decrease our reliance on
foreign oil. Domestic oil production is down 17 percent since the start
of the current administration.
Mr. Chairman, we must now work to diversify our energy portfolio and
draw on domestic renewable energy resources that, given the funding and
priority they deserve, will provide much-

[[Page H5251]]

needed reliable, affordable energy to American homes, businesses, and
industry, and free us from foreign control.
The urgency of this situation is most clearly illustrated by the
recent gas prices. Climbing fuel costs across the Nation have served as
a painful reminder of our overdependence on foreign oil. For over a
year, countries from the OPEC cartel and other oil-producing countries
have conspired to steal from Americans by artificially inflating the
price of oil. These hikes have had a dramatic effect on the life of
every American and threaten the state of our economy.
Clearly, we rely too heavily on unreliable foreign oil supply from
the world's most volatile region. We must lessen our dependence on
foreign oil and recognize renewable energy as a vitally important and,
I believe, undervalued component of responsible energy.

{time} 1930

This morning, Secretary Richardson spoke before the Committee on
International Relations and commented that our increased technology and
renewable energy will be one of the factors that will bring oil prices
back down and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Despite exciting advances and promising advantages, renewable energy
has been underfunded in comparison to competing energy programs. From
1973, when Federal funding for renewable energy technologies started in
earnest, through fiscal year 1996, in real 1977 dollars, the Federal
Government has spent $42 billion for research and development in
nuclear and $19 billion for fossil fuels.
Contrast those figures with the $11 billion spent for renewable
energy research and development and $7 billion for energy efficiency.
Clearly, renewable energy technologies need and deserve more comparable
support, particularly in light of the fact that we are losing the
technology race to other countries, causing an even greater imbalance
in trade.
Countries like Germany and Japan are placing much higher priority on
funding renewable energy research and development, posing the risk of
U.S. technology advancement being lost to overseas competition.
Despite the financial inequity of research and development funding,
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies have made
impressive progress. Take, for example, the advances being made in my
home State of Arizona. Arizona recently became the first State to
require that a certain percentage of our electricity come from solar
sources and one of 27 States to require derivation of energy from
renewable sources, including landfill gas, wind and biomass generators.
These renewable energy technologies are steadily gaining acceptance
and are just beginning to deliver on the promise of clean, abundant,
reliable and increasingly competitive renewable energy. I am confident
that with consistent, healthy funding, renewable energy technologies
will continue to faithfully deliver on that promise.
As my colleagues know, or many of them know and probably are happy
about this, this is my final term, and the close of my service as
chairman of the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. I
am very pleased at the progress that renewables have made during my
stewardship. House caucus membership is at an all-time high of 160
Members. Senate caucus membership has grown to an impressive 26
Members. Nationwide support for renewable energy is strong and growing,
and funding levels are back on the rise.
I am optimistic about this year's House and Senate funding levels and
hope that, as more funds become available, the conference bill will
further boost appropriations for renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs.
I urge my colleagues to support renewable energy and energy
efficiency research and development. Together, we can ensure a secure,
abundant, clean and promising renewable energy future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this
amendment with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) who chairs the
House Caucus on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, and with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur). I especially want to thank the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Salmon) for working with me on this amendment. This is our second
joint effort in the last 2 years.
I join with many of my colleagues in saying we will miss the
leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on this issue. We
look forward to working with him from his home State of Arizona, and
who knows what the future may hold.
I do also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman
Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking
member, for agreeing to accept this amendment.
The amendment will add $40 million to solar and renewable energy
programs in fiscal 2001 and will offset this sum with Department of
Energy contractor funds. While this increase is not even close to the
levels of the request, it is a good start, and I hope it can begin a
trend toward increased funding for these programs in future years.
After all the rhetoric we have been hearing in the last few weeks in
the newspapers, on the talk shows, and on the floor about our lack of
an energy policy, I am glad to have this opportunity today to rise
above recrimination to get to the heart of the problem.
I want to talk about the importance of agreeing on a long-term energy
policy, one that requires us to think beyond today's gasoline prices
and beyond the elections in November. I want to talk about the real
crisis that will develop in 10 or 20 years from now when oil prices
will probably go up permanently as a result of increasing global demand
and of passing the peak in global petroleum production.
We have not done enough to prepare for this eventuality. But we might
have the opportunity to do so now. If there is a silver lining to the
current crisis in oil prices, it is that we are being forced to
consider alternative energy sources.
The Department of Energy has been looking into these alternatives for
years. Twenty years after research on clean energy technologies began,
these technologies are becoming a part of the solution to concerns
about the quality of our water and air and changes in our climate.
DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests,
helping to provide strategies and tools to address the environmental
challenges we will face in the coming decades. By reducing air
pollution and other environmental impacts from energy production and
use, these programs also constitute the single largest and most
effective Federal pollution prevention program.
Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other
public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on
imported oil has actually increased to record levels over the past 25
years. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I are old enough to
remember the gas lines and the early crisis of the early 1970s. These
programs are helping us to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby
strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new
domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening
new international markets for American goods and services.
It is estimated that the world market for energy supply and
construction over the next 30 years will be in the range of several
hundred billion dollars per year. America currently leads the world
technologically in developing advanced renewable instruments and
products; and we cannot, I say cannot, afford to surrender this lead to
our foreign competitors.
Past Federal support for sustainable energy programs has been key to
the rapid growth of these emerging renewable technologies. Solar, wind,
geothermal, and biomass technologies have together more than tripled
their contribution to the Nation's energy mix of our Nation over the
last two decades. Including hydropower renewables, renewables now
account for over

[[Page H5252]]

10 percent of domestic energy production, and approximately 13 percent
of domestic electricity generation.
While these technologies have become increasingly cost-competitive,
the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined
largely by government support for future research and development as
well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships,
leading to full commercialization.
Not only economic independence, but also environmental health and
lower energy costs are advanced by our investment in renewable energy.
But for our investment in these technologies to pay off, efforts must
be sustained over the long term. It is time for us to recognize the
value of clean energy research and development to our communities and
to our world and to commit to sustaining our investment in clean energy
in the years to come.
Our amendment does not quite do all that should be done, but it does
greatly improve the bill. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Arizona for yielding me this time. I thank him and congratulate
him on his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there has never been a time when this country should be
ready for alternatives. There has never been a time when we should be
working together to solve our energy problems in this country and start
moving away from a 60 percent dependency. It is bad enough to be 60
percent dependent, but worse when one is dependent on unstable parts of
the world, some parts of it who desperately do not like us.
On the renewable side, I think one part I want to emphasize on is the
hydrogen side. One of the most renewable resources in this country is
hydrogen. I believe it has been undervalued as a potential. I believe
it has not received, for a long time, the support it should.
This is why I have such a strong interest in the potential for the
evolution of a hydrogen economy, an economy where hydrogen can compete
and win both as an energy supplement, a pure energy commodity rather
than simply as a chemical. Rather than suffering a dependency upon
imported energy sources, we can use hydrogen produced here at home as
an abundant, efficient energy source with the capacity to increase U.S.
competitiveness, bringing high-salaried jobs to this country.
Secondly, hydrogen is abundant. It can be produced from a variety of
renewable resources, and it has many uses, offering the promise of
significant benefits to the agricultural, manufacturing,
transportation, and service sectors of our economy. Our aerospace and
chemical industries are ready right now to implement significant
increases in the production, distribution, and storage of hydrogen as
an energy commodity.
Also, hydrogen is a proven, effective carrier of energy. Today, our
cars are fueled with hydrogen-enriched gasoline. Our automobile
industry is developing fuel-cell powered cars, and researchers are
closing in on ways to power entire communities with hydrogen
technology.
There are many who feel that the Third World developing countries
will be able to utilize it before us. We can create it and sell it to
them, another way to increase American jobs.
I am told that hydrogen can be combined with gasoline, ethanol,
methanol, or natural gas. Just adding 5 percent hydrogen to the
gasoline/air mixture in an internal combustion engine can reduce
nitrogen oxide emissions from 30 to 40 percent. An engine converted to
burn pure hydrogen produces mostly clean water as exhaust.
For example, NASA, in addition to using hydrogen to propel the space
shuttle, uses hydrogen to provide all the shuttles electric power in
on-board fuel cells, whose exhaust, pure water, is used to drink by
those who are on the trip.
While this is no secret, some people might be surprised to know that
the largest user of hydrogen is the petrochemical industry which
infuses oil with growing amounts of hydrogen in order to meet
environmental regulations. Hydrogen also improves the potency and
lowers emissions of natural gas. I believe this is one of the most
immediate targets of continuing opportunity for our industry.
Our economy is a fossil fuel-based economy, and we should be thankful
for the success we have had there. But hydrogen, not only is an energy
itself, but is an enhancer of the current fossil fuels.
I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I urge a stronger emphasis
be put on hydrogen. There is no downside to hydrogen. It is what we
should put our investment in. I believe it will be the fuel that will
operate our future economy.

{time} 1945

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, to speak to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and tell him that I was very
interested to hear his remarks and I look forward to working together
with him on this exciting potential that hydrogen does offer to us.
As the gentleman points out, it may well be the fuel economy of the
future, and it has very clean by-products and has applications across
all the energy needs we now have in our society. So I look forward to
working with the gentleman to promote the use of hydrogen for the long
term.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert) for their cosponsorship of this very important
amendment.
I want to also thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their cooperation. Because when this
legislation was considered in the full Committee on Appropriations, I
offered an amendment to make sure that we did not spend any less this
coming year than we did the current year, and the original bill that
came to us was about $12 million under what we were spending for this
area of renewables and solar. In fact, it was $106 million under the
administration's request. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard)
very willingly tried to work with us and to tick up this account a bit.
Certainly in light of rising fuel prices in this country, we really
thank the chairman for his cooperation and interest, and I sincerely
hope as this bill progresses farther down the appropriations process in
our work with the other body we will be able to find additional dollars
for this important addition to America's energy security.
Every person in this Chamber and every American listening tonight
knows that this is the right direction for America, and that in fact
America's chief strategic vulnerability now is our energy dependence.
To see American diplomats on their knees to the leaders of other
countries, oil producing states, asking them to try to take care of us
and to increase their production, is not a position America wants to be
in at the beginning of this new millennium.
We spend over $50 billion a year on imported petroleum products and
crude. And when we go and pump gasoline in our tanks, over half of
every dollar that we spend goes in the pocket of a leader of business
in some other nation, not this one. To put it in perspective, America's
farmland and our farmers, our agriculture infrastructure, can produce
enough energy to replace half of our Nation's gasoline usage and all of
our nuclear power supply. And we can do so without a major impact on
food prices. That is how productive agricultural America can be if
given this challenge.
Imagine taking that $50 billion we pay to someone else and putting it
to work here at home for domestic investment in rural America, in terms
of jobs created for production, harvesting, storage of biofuel inputs,
and industrial growth with the creation of facilities for the
conversion of biomass to fuel. What an energy boost, in fact, this
would be and an income boost for so many communities across this
country.
I have been very surprised at how slow we have made progress in this

[[Page H5253]]

area. Progress has come, but not in as fast a way as we have seen
progress, for example, in our space program. So I rise in very strong
support of the amendment. This is the right direction for America, the
right direction for the future, and I commend both gentlemen.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who not only talks the talk, he
walks the walk. He has a convertible so that he does not have to use
his blow dryer in the morning and saves on energy that way.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the personal
observation of the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to salute the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), who just made some very, very important statements. I think it
is important for America to note the strongest Nation on Earth, the one
everyone comes to for aid and assistance, is on bended knee at OPEC
headquarters pleading for lower fuel prices. The United States of
America, who when asked to defend other nations is the first to
respond, sends its emissaries to plead with the oil emirates to please
bring down our prices, our voters are upset.
This amendment goes a long way to rectifying not only the pleadings
but, hopefully, the passage of a new era in seeking alternative fuels
that will not degrade the environment, that will be available, and will
create opportunities and jobs. So I applaud the gentleman from Arizona
and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their leadership on
this initiative. I do think it is important.
Mr. Chairman, we flick on switches and electricity immediately comes
on. We start our cars; we drive. We immediately have access to
virtually anything we want in this country. Yet at the end of the day
we are indeed dependent on other people to supply the basic resources
of this country to run our operations. Let us not continue to find
ourselves at this place at this time. Let us support this amendment,
let us move forward, let us strive in the 21st century to bring about
technologies that will improve the quality of life, that will improve
the quality of the atmosphere and make our lives less dependent on
outside and external forces.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to respond to my colleague from Florida that I agree with
him; that this is an issue of national security at its core. It is also
an issue of great economic opportunity. And in an interesting way, it
is an issue that could provide more freedom to every American.
If we think about it, we bring our oil from all over the world, and
we have to centralize the production of it and the distribution of it.
If we move in the direction that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) are providing leadership
in, we can be producing these fuels in our home areas and in ways that
provide maximum freedom to all our citizens.
It is an interesting thought and an exciting one, I thank the
gentleman for his leadership on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Udall) for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this
alternative energy amendment.
In the past few months, gasoline prices have skyrocketed, with my
western Wisconsin constituents paying nearly $1.90 per gallon for
conventional gasoline, not the reformulated gasoline, but conventional
gasoline. Unfortunately, many elected officials, from both sides of the
political aisle, would rather play politics with this issue and blame
someone else for the problem rather than work to find answers and fix
the problem for the future.
Many of my colleagues claim that the current gasoline prices are the
result of an inadequate national energy policy. To them, however,
increased domestic drilling and greater reliance on oil seems to be the
panacea for decreasing the rising prices at the pump. Other Members
believe the big oil companies and refiners are gouging consumers with
inflated gasoline prices, leading to a 512 percent profit margin for
the oil industry in this year alone.
While the arguments of both parties may well have some merit, it is
undeniable this Nation needs to invest more in renewable and
alternative energy technologies that are more environmentally friendly.
Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower are important
components in our Nation's energy mix. Unfortunately, between fiscal
year 1973 and fiscal year 1995, renewable energy technologies accounted
for approximately 10 percent of all Federal Government research and
development spending. Private sector energy R&D declined 42 percent
between 1985 and 1994. In fact, it has continued, this downward
decline.
Investments in efficient and renewable energy sources deliver value
for taxpayers by lowering our energy demand while developing additional
domestic energy sources that strengthen our national security, spur new
high-tech jobs, boost world economic development, and help protect the
environment.
My constituents are currently suffering from inordinately high gas
prices. And while it is important that we find out the causes for the
regional differentials in gas prices as they exist today, especially in
the upper Midwest region, we must also use this opportunity to advance
a proactive and more sustainable long-term energy policy so we are in
more control of our own energy needs in the future. This amendment
helps us get there, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Salmon-
Udall amendment to increase funding for renewable programs. Renewables
are a clean energy source and renewables are good for our environment.
It is no secret that current sources of energy, nuclear and fossil
fuel-burning power plants, produce emissions and pollutants. These
harmful by-products include long-lived radioactive wastes, greenhouse
gases, and the air pollutants responsible for acid rain. By increasing
our support for renewable energy sources to meet our Nation's electric
needs, we can significantly reduce our contribution to the release of
these pollutants.
Supporting renewable energy is a powerful and direct way to help
protect the environment, and it is also a way to make a long-lasting
commitment to our children's future and to the future of our planet. It
is only responsible, and it is prudent that we support the
technological development of renewable energy sources, especially in
light of the current oil price crisis we are all experiencing across
this Nation.
I firmly believe that we already rely too heavily on foreign oil. We
must develop a responsible domestic energy policy. We must shift our
focus to domestic fuel sources, like wind, like solar and geothermal;
and we must assure a guaranteed supply of available and affordable
energy. Yet in order for us to have options other than foreign-produced
fossil fuel in the future, we must have genuine investments in
renewables today.
This amendment is a key step in that direction. It is also a
statement of what our energy priorities must and should be. Mr.
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We must
develop renewable sources of energy that our children can depend upon.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Again, I want to just close and thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), for all his terrific work in this regard
over the last couple of years. I do look forward to working with him in
the future.
I might leave the discussion with a couple of additional thoughts. I
was reminded that just 100 years ago humans depended on three sources
of energy: their own muscle power, that of animals, and wood. And over
the last hundred years we have created an immensely powerful supply of
energy that is based on petroleum and fossil fuels.

[[Page H5254]]

When that potential energy source became apparent, the Federal
Government was very involved in the research and development that
occurred that determined and explored and discovered all these terrific
uses for petroleum.
Now we are on the cusp of a new age, and I think it is very
appropriate that we continue this kind of involvement as we move into a
new energy century and we explore all the great possibilities of clean
energy that involves biomass, solar, hydrogen, and the like. This is
something that will be exciting, that will be great for our economy and
great for our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and would simply like to concur with the gentleman from Colorado.
We have a very exciting opportunity right now. We are on the cusp of
some things that are very great. We can stay at the leading edge on
technology, or we can move to the back of the pack. I propose that we
are doing the right thing tonight by moving one step closer on this
commitment toward renewable energy.
I thank the gentleman for his tireless commitment. It has been an
honor and a privilege to work with him on this.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 2000

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Foley

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Foley:
Page 16, line 18, insert after ``$576,482,000'' the
following: ``(reduced by $22,500,000) (increased by
$13,000,000) (increased by $6,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Packard) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to thank the gentleman
from California (Chairman Packard) for his hard work on this
legislation before us today. I am proud of the work he has done to help
preserve our water resources, particularly in the Everglades in
Florida.
This is probably one the most important bills Members deal with
relative to their legislative responsibilities because it clearly works
within the districts and the multitude of projects that make America
the great Nation it is.
I join my colleague today the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey). He is unavoidably detained or he would be here today at this
moment to argue with us the importance of this amendment.
But I think we can do more to preserve those truly important
resources while ending some of the wasteful spending and corporate
welfare in so many of the programs brought before this Congress.
The amendment I am offering today would shift funding from the
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, to renewable energy
research, which is truly a clean renewable source of energy.
After pouring more than $47 billion into the nuclear power industry
over the last 50 years, this industry is still attempting to have the
taxpayers fund its research and industry improvement efforts. Included
in the fiscal year 2001 funding for the Department of Energy, the
nuclear power industry will still get another $22.5 million in Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative subsidies.
I think this is wrong, Mr. Chairman. The money goes to such corporate
giants as Westinghouse and General Electric. Why does this mature
industry need the help of the American taxpayers to develop and design
the next generation nuclear reactors?
I would ask my colleagues, are any planned in their hometown or
community? Probably not. But we are still spending money on research.
Six of the nine largest investor-owned utilities by revenue were
nuclear energy in 1998. They made profits of nearly $200 billion last
year. Yet, the American people must continue to fund them.
Westinghouse and General Electric have been in the business for more
than 40 years, and it is their turn to lead and to use their huge
profits to advance their own industry.
The American taxpayers have over the last 50 years put $47 billion,
again, $47 billion into nuclear subsidies. They should not have to
subsidize this giant of an industry any longer.
Again, the amendment I am offering today with my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), would ensure this money is
used to support clean renewable energy. We would further help this
emerging industry reinforce their infrastructure and keep it a reliable
source for the future.
It is projected that voting for this amendment could save the
American people at least $95 million over the next 5 years.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this common sense initiative. We would
move out of the $22.5 requested in the cut, $13 million to wind energy
and $6 million to Electric Energy Systems account, with the remaining
$3.5 million to be returned to the Treasury for debt reduction.
I believe this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) would pull the rug out from under the Department of
Energy's important Nuclear Research Initiative, NERI, as it is called.
This chart behind me represents the latest data from the Energy
Information Agency. There are 103 operating nuclear power plants in
this country. They provide 23 percent of the Nation's electricity, more
than ever before in our history. Think about it, almost one quarter
comes from nuclear. Nuclear is clean and it is green and it is
emissions free.
I implore every Member with a nuclear-related university or industry
in their district to think about this. Regardless of whether it is a
university program or nuclear engineering, a national laboratory or one
of those 103 power plants, the NERI program provides vital information
to support innovative research in nuclear technology.
This program is reinvigorating the Department of Energy's nuclear
energy R&D based upon competitive and, more importantly, peer-reviewed
projects. Even the President's very own committee of advisors says that
PCAST as it is called, recommended in 1997 that further nuclear energy
research and development is absolutely necessary to maintain the
Nation's energy mix.
So it is absolutely amazing to me that someone would want to cut the
modest amount of funding for the NERI program and instead send it to
fund solar and renewables.
Let us take a look at this chart for a little bit. This is 1999. In
1999, 22.78, almost 23 percent, more than it was 10 years ago, more
than it was 20 years ago. And guess what? The very things that my
colleagues are talking about, such as the renewables, we can hardly
find them on here.
When my colleagues turn the switch on in their house, where do they
think the power comes from? It does not come from solar. It does not
come from biomass or wind. In fact, the gentleman over here said 13
percent of it was all wrapped up in renewables. He is counting hydro.
Hydro is a part of this. Hydro is clean.
But look at this. This is 1999. In 1990, it was the same thing, with
nuclear down about 2 percent. In 1980, about the same thing. In the 30
years we have been funding this renewable program, we have seen very
little gain.
I am not suggesting we drop it. I am suggesting we balance it. Do not
take away funding that is needed. There are kids that want to go to
school to learn how to keep these things going in the new generation of
these nuclear plants that is coming on line.

[[Page H5255]]

Would my colleagues believe that nuclear plants can operate at a 100
percent capacity. Do they know that wind cannot get above 28? They talk
about 100 percent capacity. Look, the wind does not blow all the time.
Do not let that word fool us. Solar. The sun does not shine all the
time.
So they said 100 percent capacity. No such thing, my colleagues. It
is way below 28 percent, down around 20 percent. So keep that in mind
when we are talking about dropping this program.
I admit I, too, like the solar. But let us not kill what works. We
have got to prove this thing works. And it does not yet, the way
nuclear does--reject the Markey-Foley amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment.
Students and teachers and universities are the issue here.
Students are endangered by Mr. Foley and Mr. Markey. They're
threatening the education of real live students. Students, as a part of
their education, engage in research. This scientific research enables
them to get their degrees. In fact, without this research, these
students don't get their degrees.
Let's take real, live students and professors in the state of
Massachusetts where Mr. Markey lives and the interests of which he
supposedly represents.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) happens to be in
Massachusetts. In fact it is about one mile from the edge of Mr.
Markey's congressional district. The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology has been awarded eleven NERI grants. These grants are
awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed, sound scientific basis by a
panel of expert scientists.
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, fully 20 students and
eight professors thus receive the very funds that Mr. Markey is trying
to take away and benefit from the very program that Mr. Markey is
destroying.
For example, let's take two students at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology: Jini Curran and Martin Busse. These students are
studying engineering and they have chosen to study the specific
discipline of nuclear engineering. Jini and Martin are doing research
under the guidance of a particular Professor Mujid Kazimi.
Without the funding that the NERI program provides, Jini and Martin's
NERI research will have to be stopped and the future of their education
is in doubt.
Professor Kazimi's research here will cease. Substantial financial
resources that now go to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will
be stopped dead by Mr. Markey. MIT's Nuclear Engineering Department
will therefore be diminished.
When these students Jini and Martin and the other eighteen students
at MIT are hurt by Mr. Markey, and when Professor Kazimi and the other
seven professors at MIT are hurt by Mr. Markey, and MIT's Nuclear
Engineering Department is diminished in this way by Mr. Markey, then
indeed the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts themselves are
hurt by Mr. Markey.
Rest assured that if they are not already aware of the damage Mr.
Markey seeks to do here today, I will work to make sure that all of the
students and the professors and the universities all across this great
nation will be made fully aware of his actions and the effects of his
actions.
Perhaps some of these twenty student and these eight professors live
in Mr. Markey's congressional district. Thus, perhaps they are thus his
constituents.
For the sake of the Jini and Martin and professor Kazimi and all of
the students and professors and universities across the nation, Mr.
Markey and this amendment must be stopped.
A vote for the amendment advocated by Mr. Markey and Mr. Foley is a
vote against education.
Vote no on the Foley/Markey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and
would add my voice to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my first concern is that we have just had a vote on
this floor to, essentially, increase funding for renewables by $40
million. And secondly, I do think under the NERI program we are doing
very important research. We are looking to continue to improve
efficiency and reliability and to reduce the cost of existing nuclear
energy applications. We are looking for proliferation resistant
reactors in fuels. We are looking for new reactor designs with improved
safety, higher efficiency, and lower costs that would be competitive in
the global market. And we are looking for new technologies for nuclear
waste management and investigations into fundamental nuclear science.
I do oppose the amendment put forth and would encourage my colleagues
to vote against it.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply have to oppose this amendment because it
totally eliminates the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, which I
think would be a terrible mistake. This has been an initiative very
modestly funded while essential to keep nuclear energy safe and to
continue nuclear energy as a viable part of our energy resources.
It is clean. It is proven to be safe. It is 20 percent of our
Nation's electricity. And to eliminate the entire NERI project I think
would be absolutely unconscionable.
We have beefed up, as has already been said just in the previous
amendment tonight, $40 million additional to renewable energy
resources. And we think that that is even beyond what is necessary, but
certainly we are willing to do that. But to add $19 million more to
that I think would not be appropriate.
And so, I urge all Members to vote against the amendment to cut
nuclear R&D.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the NERI R&D program at DOE is an
innovative program to spur new thinking at DOE labs, the nation's
universities and in industry. The NERI program represents a
revitalization of the Department's nuclear energy research program.
Begun two years ago, these awards also represent excellence. Out of
120 proposals received by DOE, only 10 were selected, including one
from Texas A&M University.
Through NERI, the Department has ushered in a new management approach
to long-term nuclear energy research that applies the competitive,
peer-reviewed selection of investigator-initiated R&D proposals.
Through NERI, the Department has initiated an R&D effort focused on
resolving barriers to the future expansion of nuclear energy--including
proliferation, economics and nuclear waste.
Through NERI, we are maintaining our seat at the table of the
international discussion on the future of nuclear energy. This is
critical if we are to participate in discussions on clean air, climate
change and energy security.
Advancing the state of nuclear science and technology, resolving key
technology issues, and engaging the international community will all
contribute to enabling the United States to reassert its leadership
role in the development of nuclear energy technologies.
I am therefore pleased to support NERI and oppose the Foley amendment
that would eliminate this vital program at DOE.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, a few summers ago a boondoggle was born:
the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative--NERI. When I think of this
program, I can't help but think ``There's something about NERI. Just
like the movie from which it was inspired, this program is a bad
spoof--it passes itself off as a necessary research initiative to
maintain the viability of the nuclear power industry. But it is really
nothing more than the same subsidy for the nuclear power industry that
Congress cut in 1998.
It is amazing that such a mature, established industry still has a
subsidy from the federal government. In the last few years, the nuclear
power industry has been a $140 billion dollar a year industry. In fact,
the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry trade group for the
revenue were nuclear utilities. That hardly sounds like a fledgling
industry in need of government subsidy.
But that is exactly what the industry would have you think. They will
tell you we need this money to conduct research into new reactor
designs. The problem is this research helps the industry improve the
economic performance of existing facilities. I don't think an industry
that already produces 20% of the nation's electricity needs any more
help from the federal government to improve the performance of its
facilities. The industry has the resources and expertise to deal with
those issues on its own.
Before you think this is important academic research let me remind
you that NERI awarded grants to Westinghouse and General Electric to
develop new advanced reactor designs. These are companies that have
been designing and building equipment for the nuclear industry for over
40 years. They should know by now how to develop new generations of
reactors. More importantly, they have the resources to carry out that
research.
Mr. Chairman, this industry has received $47 billion dollars in
subsidy over the last fifty

[[Page H5256]]

years. That's close to $1 billion dollars a year! Imagine what wind,
solar or other clean renewable energy projects could do in fifty years
if they received subsidies of $1 billion per year.
The time to be subsidizing this industry is over. The nuclear energy
film is on the last reel and it is time to begin making room for the
digital age of electricity generation--multiple, reliable, clean
renewable energy generating sources integrated into a seamless
transmission network.
So with the funds available from NERI, we will take $6 million form
the NERI program and put it into research into the reliability of the
electricity transmission system. Brownouts and blackouts are looming
this summer. This research will help keep the lights on and the air
conditioners running. In addition, the research will examine how to
ensure that the clean, renewable distributed generating facilities can
be integrated into the transmission infrastructure.
In addition, we will increase wind power research and development by
$13 million to bring it closer to the Administration request level.
This is a true, clear renewable energy source. With the research the
Department of Energy is conducting, the industry will ensure wind
energy a viable alternative to other forms of electricity generation.
We have decided to make regarding the future of our electricity
generating facilities. I encourage members to put a stop to subsidies
for mature industries. Instead give the new industries a chance to
research their potential to deliver clean, renewable energy for the
future.
I urge members to vote yes on the Foley Amendment.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Foley/Markey amendment to eliminate the Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative, or NERI.
I support both renewable energy research programs and nuclear energy
research programs, but the numbers speak for themselves.
This bill already provides $350 million for solar and renewable
energy programs compared to $40 million for nuclear energy research and
development.
With passage of the Salmon amendment earlier this evening, funding
for solar and renewable research programs has increased to almost $400
million.
Funding for solar and renewable energy research now dwarfs funding
for nuclear energy research. In this situation, it makes no sense to
eliminate what little funding exists for research aimed at an energy
source that provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity. In my home
state of Illinois, that percentage is even higher.
Again, the numbers speak for themselves. In FY 1999, 91 percent of
NERI's funding went to independent, peer-reviewed research projects at
America's research universities and national laboratories, including
Argonne National Laboratory, a Department of Energy multi-program
laboratory located in the district I represent. Only 9 percent went to
private sector entities.
I would encourage my colleagues to remember that we are talking about
a source of energy that does not produce harmful air emissions. Again,
the number speak for themselves. At least 165 million metric tons of
carbon are not emitted each year because of this country's operating
nuclear power plants.
Mr. Chairman, as electricity demand grows, we cannot ignore a viable
and significant source of electricity like nuclear energy, especially
one that does not dirty the air. I support nuclear energy research and
development, and would urge my colleagues to oppose the Foley/Markey
amendment.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Foley-Markey
amendment with transfers funds from nuclear energy research to
renewable energy programs.
As a follow-up to the Budget Committee's hearing on my legislation,
the Corporate Welfare Reform Commission Act, I continue to support
efforts to root out corporate welfare. While my legislation is a
comprehensive approach to get at all corporate welfare in the federal
budget and tax code, I have been looking closely at programs funded
through the appropriations bills that provide unnecessary and wasteful
subsidies to industry.
Over the past fifty years, the nuclear power industry has received
$47 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayers. The nuclear power
industry is now a mature industry with over $140 billion in revenues
last year alone. Funding under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI) is funneled to some of the largest corporations in the country.
These very successful companies can stand to do without the support of
the American taxpayer.
This amendment also has the benefit of transferring this money to a
more deserving cause which is in the early stages of development and
which provides a truly clean source of energy: wind power research.
Some of the funds transferred under this amendment would also go to
research on other renewable, cleaner forms of energy.
I urge the House to support the amendment by Mr. Foley and Mr.
Markey.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) will
be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read, as follows:

Non-Defense Environmental Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
management activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction or expansion, $281,001,000, to
remain available until expended.

Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to maintain, decontaminate,
decommission, and otherwise remediate uranium processing
facilities, $301,400,000, of which $260,000,000 shall be
derived from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund and of which $12,000,000 shall be
derived by transfer from the United States Enrichment
Corporation Fund, all of which shall remain available until
expended.

Science

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not to exceed 58 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, $2,830,915,000, to remain
available until expended.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $213,000,000, to remain available until expended
and to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That
not to exceed $2,500,000 may be provided to the State of
Nevada solely for expenditures, other than salaries and
expenses of State employees, to conduct scientific oversight
responsibilities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, Public Law 97-425, as amended: Provided further, That
not to exceed $5,887,000 may be provided to affected units of
local governments, as defined in Public Law 97-425, to
conduct appropriate activities pursuant to the Act: Provided
further, That the distribution of the funds as determined by
the units of local government shall be approved by the
Department of Energy: Provided further, That the funds for
the State of Nevada shall be made available solely to the
Nevada Division of Emergency Management by direct payment and
units of local government by direct payment: Provided
further, That within 90 days of the completion of each
Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management and the Governor of the State of Nevada and each
local entity shall provide certification to the Department of
Energy that all funds expended from such payments have been
expended for activities authorized by Public Law 97-425 and
this Act. Failure to provide such certification shall cause
such entity to be prohibited from any further funding
provided for similar activities: Provided further, That none
of the funds herein appropriated may be: (1) used directly or
indirectly to influence legislative action on any matter
pending before Congress or a State legislature or for
lobbying activity as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for
litigation expenses; or (3) used to support multi-state
efforts or other coalition building activities inconsistent
with the restrictions contained in this Act: Provided
further, That all proceeds and recoveries by the Secretary in
carrying out activities authorized by the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 in Public Law 97-425, as amended,
including but not limited to, any proceeds from the sale of
assets, shall be available without further appropriation and
shall remain available until expended.

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $35,000), $153,527,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in

[[Page H5257]]

the estimated amount of cost of work for others
notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31
U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases in cost
of work are offset by revenue increases of the same or
greater amount, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $111,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal
year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $42,527,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ney

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ney:
Page 20, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000)''.
Page 2D, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $3,000,000).''
Page 33, line 13, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, today I wanted to offer an amendment that
would increase funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
However, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment and ask the
distinguished chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) if
he would instead enter into a colloquy with me in regard to this
matter.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard)
that I have offered my amendment today and have withdrawn it in order
to bring attention to the funding level contained in the Energy and
Water appropriations bill for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
I assure the gentleman it is with my utmost respect to the chairman
and members of the subcommittee and full committee that I bring this
matter to the attention of the House because I am fully aware of the
constraints placed on them with regard to the 302(b) allocation made to
it.
I commend the chairman and ranking member on the fine job they have
done on this bill, considering the funding levels with which they have
had to work.
Unfortunately, because of the funding restraints placed on the
subcommittee, the Appalachian Regional Commission is being funded at a
level that is $3.149 million less than the appropriation in fiscal year
2000. That funding is also nearly $8.4 million less than was requested
in the President's budget.
As Members of Congress and as a Member of Congress that represents
counties that have some of the highest unemployment rates in the State
and are indicative of conditions within Appalachia, I believe it is
important to properly and adequately fund the ARC so that these
depressed counties can take advantage of the economic development
opportunities that ARC provides.
It is my understanding that the chairman, along with other members of
the subcommittee, including the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) who is also well aware of the needs of Appalachia
residents, would consider increased funding for ARC should the
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation be increased.
I ask the gentleman, am I correct in assuming that?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is
correct in assuming this. Should the committee receive a revised 302(b)
allocation which increases our funding level, then our effort will be
to consider increasing funding for the ARC to at least the fiscal year
2000 funding level.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
It is also my understanding that the other body intends on
appropriating a level for ARC which is higher than the level proposed
in this bill. As a result, I would like to inquire further of the
chairman if it would be his intention during conference negotiations
that he could support an agreement to increase this funding for ARC at
least to the fiscal year 2000 levels even if an increase in the 302(b)
allocation is not made?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
yes, in response to his question, I am prepared to work with the other
body during the conferencing of the bill to negotiate funds to fund for
the ARC at a minimum of the fiscal year 2000 level.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
entering into this colloquy. I appreciate all of his hard work on this
bill and for taking the time to speak with me on a matter that affects
really millions of people in Appalachia.
I look forward to seeing this bill advance as the process moves along
and offer any assistance that I can.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.

{time} 2015

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $31,500,000, to remain
available until expended.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Kingston:
Page 21, line 5 insert ``, including conducting a study of
the economic basis of recent gasoline price levels'' after
``until expended''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is anybody opposed to this or
not. I hope this is a constructive amendment. All it simply asks is
that the Office of Inspector General give us a study of the economic
basis of the recent gasoline price increases, and this is just because
we are not exactly sure what all caused the increases from the $1.20
range as high as the $2.80 per-gallon range. And that is all we are
trying to do, not fingerpoint.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
We think it is a very good amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston) yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, I am not opposed
to the gentleman's amendment but would simply point out that we are now
applying an additional responsibility to the Inspector General's office
and not providing any additional funds; and the fact is the funding for
the Inspector General in this bill is $1.5 million less than the
administration request.
The final observation I would make is obviously we are dealing with
the Department of Energy. The gentleman is very concerned, as we all
are, about the high price of gasoline; but I do not know whether the
expertise to do the best job possible in the Department of Energy
resides with the Inspector General.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, that we will be happy to
work with this committee as the process continues to make sure that
there are enough funds to do this, because we think that it is
important. I know the gentleman has been a leader in this also. So we
will be glad to work with him.

[[Page H5258]]

We do have another amendment that affects the Secretary of Energy in
a similar way.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Weapons Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 12 for replacement
only), $4,625,684,000, to remain available until October 1,
2003.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for atomic
energy defense and defense nuclear nonproliferation
activities to carry out the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including acquisition (by
purchase, condemnation, construction, or otherwise) of real
property, plant and capital equipment, facilities, and
facility expansion, $861,477,000, to remain available until
October 1, 2003: Provided, That not to exceed $7,000 may be
used for official reception and representation expenses for
national security and nonproliferation (including
transparency) activities in fiscal year 2001.

Naval Reactors

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $677,600,000, to remain
available until expended.

OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of 30 passenger motor vehicles
for replacement only, $4,522,707,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That any amounts appropriated under
this heading that are used to provide economic assistance
under section 15 of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
Withdrawal Act, Public Law 102-579, shall be utilized to the
extent necessary to reimburse costs of financial assurances
required of a contractor by any permit or license of the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant issued by the State of New
Mexico.

Defense Facilities Closure Projects

For expenses of the Department of Energy to accelerate the
closure of defense environmental management sites, including
the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment and other necessary expenses,
$1,082,297,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Environmental Management Privatization

For Department of Energy expenses for privatization
projects necessary for atomic energy defense environmental
management activities authorized by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $259,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Other Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
the Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program, the
Cour D'Alene Tribe Trout Production facility, and for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500.
During fiscal year 2001, no new direct loan obligations may
be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $3,900,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected by the Southeastern
Power Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures as follows: for
fiscal year 2001, up to $34,463,000; for fiscal year 2002, up
to $26,463,000; for fiscal year 2003, up to $20,000,000; and
for fiscal year 2004, up to $15,000,000.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, and for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southwestern power area, $28,100,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $4,200,000 in
reimbursements, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That amounts collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to recover
purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to
this account as offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures as follows: for fiscal year 2001,
up to $288,000; for fiscal year 2002, up to $288,000; for
fiscal year 2003, up to $288,000; and for fiscal year 2004,
up to $288,000.

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500, $160,930,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $154,616,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
of the amount herein appropriated, $4,036,000 is for deposit
into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account
pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further,
That amounts collected by the Western Area Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and
the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures as follows: for fiscal year 2001, up to
$35,500,000; for fiscal year 2002, up to $33,500,000; for
fiscal year 2003, up to $30,000,000; and for fiscal year
2004, up to $20,000,000.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$2,670,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $175,200,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$175,200,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2001 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2001 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 appropriation from
the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.

Mr. PACKARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 29 line

[[Page H5259]]

5 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments at this point?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sec. 301. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used to award a management and operating contract
unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures
or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a
waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not
delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
(b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a
waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and
setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Sec. 302. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract in a manner
that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless
the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a
waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not
delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
(b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a
waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and
setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to--
(1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
(2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits
for employees of the Department of Energy,
under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42
U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to augment the $24,500,000 made available for obligation
by this Act for severance payments and other benefits and
community assistance grants under section 3161 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for
a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.

(transfers of unexpended balances)

Sec. 306. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.
Sec. 307. Of the funds in this Act provided to government-
owned, contractor-operated laboratories, not to exceed 4
percent shall be available to be used for Laboratory Directed
Research and Development.
Sec. 308. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this title to
the Department of Energy, not more than $150,000,000 shall be
available for reimbursement of management and operating
contractor travel expenses.
(b) Funds appropriated by this title to the Department of
Energy may be used to reimburse a Department of Energy
management and operating contractor for travel costs of its
employees under the contract only to the extent that the
contractor applies to its employees the same rates and
amounts as those that apply to Federal employees under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or
rates and amounts established by the Secretary of Energy. The
Secretary of Energy may provide exceptions to the
reimbursement requirements of this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
Sec. 309. No funds are provided in this Act or any other
Act for the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration to enter into any agreement to perform energy
efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville
service territory, with the exception of services provided
internationally, including services provided on a
reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies that
such services are not available from private sector
businesses.
Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
previous Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for
payment into the Department of Energy Working Capital Fund
may be used to pay salaries and expenses of any employee of
the United States Government.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Kingston:
Page 33, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 311. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit
to the Congress a report on activities of the executive
branch to address high gasoline prices and to develop an
overall national energy strategy.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat similar to the last amendment which
asks the Inspector General's office to come up with a report on what
the economic basis for the gas price increase so rapidly was and/or has
been, and this is similar to that in that it asks the Secretary of
Energy to transmit to the Congress a report on the activities of the
executive branch and, of course, the agency, the Department of Energy,
does serve at the will, it is an executive agency; and this just asks
for a report within 30 days and what activities the executive branch is
doing to address the high gasoline prices.
I know, having served on the Subcommittee on the Interior of the
Committee on Appropriations and having had the Secretary of Energy come
before our committee, they have been working on this. So I hope this is
not anything new. It should not be expensive for them just to give us
the report of what they have been up to.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as with the gentleman's earlier
amendment, I am not going to rise in opposition to it but would again
point out an additional burden has now been placed on the Department of
Energy with no additional funding for it, and just want to state that
for the membership.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I do think that this probably is going to
be a lot easier for the Secretary of Energy than the other one was for
the Inspector General. We will work with the committee, obviously, and
follow their wisdom on it; but we just want to make sure that we in
government on the legislative branch, on the executive branch, we are
doing everything we can to address this situation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman
and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$63,000,000, to remain available until expended.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $17,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
including official representation expenses (not to exceed
$15,000), $481,900,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $21,600,000

[[Page H5260]]

shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$457,100,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That $3,200,000 of the
funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and
assistance to other Federal agencies and States shall be
excluded from license fee revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C.
2214: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during
fiscal year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation estimated at not more than $24,800,000.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $5,500,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees,
inspection services, and other services and collections
estimated at $5,500,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall be retained
and be available until expended, for necessary salaries and
expenses in this account notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $2,700,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.

TITLE V--RESCISSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Interim Storage Activities

(including transfer of funds)

(rescission)

Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 104-46 for interim
storage of nuclear waste, $85,000,000 are transferred to this
heading: Provided, That such amount is hereby rescinded.

TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of title 18,
United States Code.
Sec. 602. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 603. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
Reclamation law.
Sec. 604. Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2214(a)(3))
is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting
``September 30, 2001''.
Sec. 605. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution,
and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25
of the Protocol.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Visclosky:
Page 39, line 5, insert after the period the following:
The limitation established in this section shall not apply to
any activity otherwise authorized by law.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the Kyoto Protocol that has
been debated a number of times on the House floor within literally the
last several days, as well as committee; and I would simply want to
point out several things.
One is, Kyoto did not simply come full clothed from the Clinton
administration but rather from negotiations begun under President
Bush's administration pursuant to a treaty that President Bush signed
on June 1, 1992.
There was a Kyoto Protocol subsequent to that, and concerns have been
expressed as far as various administration agencies engaging in actions
that are not authorized.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has made a point of
this, and I would simply indicate that the concern I have is we have
legitimate authorized programs that the various departments in this
case, the Department of Energy, should pursue and they should not in
any way, shape or form be precluded from doing so because
coincidentally they also happen to have been mentioned in the Kyoto
Protocol.
I would agree with the concerns expressed on previous occasions by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) that the Kyoto Treaty is
not the law of the land. We should not be implementing it; but because
there are diversions and parallel tracks in many programs, I do want to
make sure that we are clear that we are not in any way inhibiting duly
authorized programs from proceeding.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2030

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition. In fact, on
the contrary, I am willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, today the House Appropriations
Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill. The amendment that the gentleman from Indiana now
offers is exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was
accepted this morning in the full House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the
Kyoto Protocol offered by me earlier and now by Mr. Visclosky cannot,
under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything
whatsoever on this Energy and Water Appropriations bill, H.R. 4733,
lest it be subject to a point of order.
This amendment shall not go beyond recognition of the original and
enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--
specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the
fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this
Administration in the words of the coordinator of all environmental
policy for this administration, George Frampton, in his position as
Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000,
on behalf of the Administration

[[Page H5261]]

he stated before this appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just
to finish our dialogue here, my point was that it is the very
uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that gives rise to
our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty created
next year.''
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the
Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed
Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his focus on the
activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized.
This amendment shall be read to be fully consistent with the
provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current
appropriations laws.
A few key points must be reviewed:
First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not
specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an
effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other
strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding
important energy supply and energy conservation programs. For example,
there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary
programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in
energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding
arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have
never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any
programs that have been specifically authorized and funded.
Second, no new authority is granted.
Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or
initiative.
Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto
Climate Change Protocol sometime ago but has decided not to submit this
treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.
The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while
exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil,
from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The
Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous
support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form
of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and
on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of
the United States.
We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies
constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to
Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly,
Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to
avoid constitutional due process.
Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would
send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we
could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy
future.
During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not
been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to
extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics.
The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American
public the real price tag of this policy.
A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be
learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented
curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt.
Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to
elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the
Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate.
I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA
understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress
to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not
occur.
In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with
legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John
Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clean Air
Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman
Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted
implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to
regulate greenhouse gases.''
In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what
activities are and are not authorized.

October 5, 1999.
Hon. David M. McIntosh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on
Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based
on discussion between our staffs, about the disposition by
the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call
my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to
Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation
Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The
Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean
Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The
latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the
1990 amendments.
First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any
provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas,
such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address
global climate change. The House, however, did include
provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed
amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points
out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and
global warming, along with provisions implementing the
Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol
related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate
conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of
November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and
819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions
separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers
to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law
does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all
of the provisions included in the Public Law.
One of these free-standing provisions, section 821,
entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases
contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United
States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires
regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions'
from `all affected sources subject to title V'' of the CAA
and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the
EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a
`pollutant' for any purpose.
Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean
Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the
House and Senate Science Committee, which had no regulatory
jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended
section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through
(k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and
Control,' calls for non-regulatory strategies and
technologies for air pollution.' While it refers, as noted in
the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House
and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide
as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes.
Based on my review of this history and my recollection of
the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the
House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory
provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced
section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas
emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air
Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the
United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990
the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately
led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was
ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the
Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing,
and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation
authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse
gases.
I hope that this is responsive.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if there are no further speakers, I
yield back the balance of my time
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
The amendment was agreed to.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to
section 607, which would be inserting at line 19, and I am not certain
if I am in order now or if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) would be first.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will have to read the next section first
before the Committee gets to that point.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to
discuss his upcoming amendment.

[[Page H5262]]

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Packard) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, I certainly appreciate the
hard work that the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the
ranking member have done on this bill.
This bill is extremely important to all of the 435 Congressional
districts, and we all appreciate their work. I represent coastal
Georgia and do a lot of Corps of Engineer-type projects in our area.
None of those are easy, they all can be controversial. I appreciate the
way, the delicate touch that the ranking member and the chairman have
when dealing with this.
The amendment that I have deals with the Secretary of Energy's
Department, not the Secretary of Energy, but it deals with some of the
recent, I am not going to use the word scandal, but some of the recent
concern that has gone on at the Los Alamos labs, which this Congress,
has on a bipartisan basis, tried to address and do our best to work
with it.
It appears that there are certain employees who have decided that
well, it is good enough to take a government paycheck, the government
is not good enough to require that they take a polygraph test. I stress
that we do not randomly ask people to take polygraph tests, but when
there has been an apparent disappearance of highly-sensitive nuclear
secrets, then if there are employees who are not necessarily even under
suspicion, but in the category where it is possible they could have
some knowledge on it, then it is appropriate for the U.S. government in
a highly-sensitive nuclear lab to go out and ask some questions and,
unfortunately, some employees are far from that investigation.
Mr. Chairman, that is what we will be dealing with on this amendment
when the appropriate time comes, and I will be glad to deal with the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) if he wanted to comment on
that, because I know the gentleman has been very concerned about
security at Los Alamos.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston) for this effort. We are embarking on a long national
nightmare about security in this area. It is not a Republican problem
or a Democratic problem. It is a national problem. It deserves a
heightened degree of attention, and I commend my friend, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for giving it that attention.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at what point in the bill is the Clerk now
reading?
The CHAIRMAN. We are to the point where the Clerk will read section
606.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 607; is
that in order at this time?
The CHAIRMAN. After 606 is read it would be in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 606. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is
amended--
(1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as
follows:

``authorization of appropriations

``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 such sums as may by necessary to
implement this part.'';
(2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``March 31,
2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30,
2001''; and
(3) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``March 31,
2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30,
2001''.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 39, after line 19, insert the following:
Sec. 607. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out the project for navigation, Delaware
River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), as
modified by section 308 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 300), before the June 1, 2001.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will control 10 minutes and a
Member opposed will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is cosponsored by the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my very able colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), is a sensible due diligence
amendment, and here is what it says. The bill proposes to spend
approximately $30 million of our constituent's money to pursue a
project to deepen the main channel of the Delaware River which divides
the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and which empties into a bay
which sits next to the State of Delaware.
We believe that there are significant unanswered questions about this
project, and the purpose of our amendment is to be sure that there is
adequate time for this Congress to first get the facts, and then decide
whether to spend the $30 million of our respected taxpayers' money.
There are questions in this project about environmental concerns
which is why the amendment is supported by the League of Conservation
Voters, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the
National Wildlife Federation and Friends of the Earth.
There are questions about the economics of this project, which is why
the amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and
Taxpayers for Common Sense. Finally, there are questions about the
equity and feasibility of the plan to distribute the dredged spoils
from this project.
Due diligence requires that we gain the answers to these questions,
and that is the way this amendment works. It says that funds for this
deepening project are prohibited to be spent before June 1 of 2001 so
that this Congress and the executive branch can answer these kinds of
questions.
Environmentally, is this project going to be a significant threat to
the drinking water and the natural resources of the Delaware River and
bay system? The proponents would say that the environmental impact
statement answers that question.
I think the environmental impact statement raises more questions. The
method that is used with respect to toxic and polluted sediment is to
average the presence of those sediments in the river bed, but that does
not allow for toxic hot spots which could arise.
It does not deal with the question of the environmental consequences
that could be done to the dredged disposal sites, and it does not deal
with the consequences of the dredging that would take place for berths
next to oil refineries, if they are ever dredged, that are relevant to
this project. There are too many environmental questions to go forward
with this project at this time.
On the economics, the proponents of this project, the Army Corps of
Engineers, say that 80 percent of the economic benefit derives from
being able to get more crude oil to six oil refineries along the
Delaware River at a cheaper rate which then lowers production costs.
Mr. Chairman, that requires those oil refineries to make a commitment
with their money to dredge their berths and make themselves available
for this crude oil before we spend $30 million of the public's money.
The record though shows that Best One Company has committed to make
that investment; the others have not. They have given us words. They
have given us gestures. They have not given us commitment or money. Mr.
Chairman, this project proposes to build a superhighway with no exit
ramps. A $311 million superhighway without an exit ramp.
Mr. Chairman, finally, there is the question of the equity of dredged
disposal sites. This project calls for 10 million cubic yards of
dredged material to be distributed on the beaches of Delaware, but the
Army Corps has refused to cooperate with the Delaware environmental
agency and get the appropriate permits which is why Senator Roth and
Senator Biden in the

[[Page H5263]]

other body have urged that this project not be funded at this time.
The project takes the remaining 22 million cubic yards of material
and proposes to put it all in southern New Jersey, which is why elected
officials, Republican and Democrat, State, local, and county throughout
southern New Jersey have objected to this project. We need due
diligence here, Mr. Chairman. We need to look at the essentials of this
project when it comes to environment, economics and dredged disposal
before we commit $30 million of the public's money to this project,
which is why environmental groups and taxpayer groups support this
amendment and why I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Andrews amendment. Quite
frankly, I make no apologies for fighting for our State, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and my State and our priorities. I do so
within the spending restraints of the Balanced Budget, and I have
looked and investigated closely the actual nature of each of these
types of projects in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development.
Let me say I do not and have not supported any project in New Jersey
that would harm my State's environment. The Delaware Deepening project
meets all environmental standards and has been approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Since some groups in the sponsor have
raised the prospect that this project is nonenvironmently justified, I
decided to contact the Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Office,
the agency required under the Federal law to review the project.
Mr. Chairman, I asked if the EPA had any outstanding environmental
concerns over the deepening of the Delaware River. The EPA's response
was no.
I have also heard the argument that the State of New Jersey is
opposed to the project. Let me state very clearly to all Members that
the State of New Jersey supports the project and Governor Whitman has
written to me to express her support. She writes, and I quote her
letter of June 5, ``given the importance of this project to New
Jersey's economy and Pennsylvania's willingness to work with us to
ensure that they accept a more equitable share of the dredged
materials, I support Congress funding this project in the fiscal year
2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.''
In addition to Governor Whitman, our senior senator from New Jersey,
Senator Lautenberg, supports this project.
Dredging on the Delaware River is not new. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has dredged the river every year for generations. The
shorelines of both sides of the river and bay contain dirt and sand
removed from the river. None of the dire environmental consequences
predicted as a result of the project have ever occurred. My colleague
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has repeatedly stated in letters and
other things that the dirt and sand taken from the Delaware River is
dangerous. It is not. The EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the New
Jersey DEP, the Pennsylvania DER have studied the project. Surely one
of these agencies after years of review would have raised some
objection.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment most strongly.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Frelinghuysen), that the New Jersey legislature has failed to yet
appropriate its match for this project because of the very concerns
that I made reference to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest), my friend and coauthor. The gentleman from Maryland is one
of the leading environmentalists of this Congress who will reflect some
of the reasons that the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club,
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National Wildlife Federation
and others so strongly support this amendment.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I will make a comment about the State of Delaware and
the State of New Jersey supporting this project. There are numerous
agencies within each of those States, and the State of Delaware has a
problem with this dredging from the governor to the two senators, to
the Member of Congress from that State.
The issues that they have had are environmental issues, and those
environmental issues deal with the toxins that are in these regions of
the river that is going to be dredged. They have a problem with the
dredged spoil that is supposed to be considered clean, which, in fact,
when we move tiny particles of dredged material, each of those grains
of sand, because of the physical nature of that structure, when it is
moved, exposed to air, deposited someplace else, releases nitrogen and
phosphorus. Those are concerns.
Delaware does not want this project to go forward, because of the
environmental concerns that the Corps of Engineers have been asked to
address, and they have not addressed those issues.

{time} 2045

The other issue my colleague from New Jersey talked about, when they
dredge this channel in the river from 40 to 45 feet, it is going to
cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Well, what good is that dredged
deeper channel going to do when we do not dredge the equivalent depth
to the berths where the ships are going to dock? And almost all of
those ships are owned by somebody. Whether it is an oil company or a
foreign steamship company, they have intimated that they are not going
to dredge from the channel to the berths.
Now, why are we dredging? I think that is the question that needs to
be asked. What are we dredging? We are dredging for fundamentally two
reasons. One so that we can get a 6-pack of Heineken for a couple of
pennies less. That is what it amounts to.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support for the Andrews amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Funding should not be withheld, and this project should not be
delayed.
Issues raised by the opponents to the project have been adequately
addressed during the planning stages and appropriate analyses and
project modifications have been made to ensure the environment is
protected. This project is included in the President's budget request;
it is supported by the governors of both States, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, as well as numerous Members of this body.
The project will deepen the Delaware main shipping channel from the
existing 40 feet to 45 feet and will provide substantial benefits. I
urge all of the Members to support the project and to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of the State of Delaware and
a supporter of the amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would point out to my colleagues than there are three States
involved in this. The State of Delaware actually runs the whole length
of this Delaware River and our State, at this moment, at least, opposes
this particular measure to dig this channel deeper, and we support the
Andrews amendment.
There are various reasons for that. One could argue waste or whatever
it may be, because this is an expensive project. But in Delaware, we
are trying to determine the environmental impact, as has been stated by
several speakers here, whether it will cause undue harm to Delaware's
natural resources.

[[Page H5264]]

Last year I supported funding because it moved the process forward
and we could find out more. Then we tried to work with the Army Corps
of Engineers in the course of this year, and the Army Corps of
Engineers and our Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control began negotiations about how the environment would be
guaranteed: would it be through a State permit or some memorandum of
agreement. It is my opinion that the forum is not as important as the
substance. Any agreement needs to be mutually acceptable, legally
enforceable, and allow for meaningful public participation.
Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that I would be able to come to the floor
tonight saying these conditions have been met, but I cannot do that;
they have not been met. Given the lack of assurances from the Corps to
my State's environmental agency, I cannot support funding for this
project this year, and that is exactly what the gentleman from New
Jersey's amendment does, it delays it for a year. I think the wiser
course of action today is to delay funding for actual dredging until
this issue is resolved.
In fact, many in my State thought that that was the Corps' position
too. This spring, a Corps spokesman stated to the Delaware press that
the Corps had all the necessary permits, and it had addressed all of
the environmental concerns created by the dredging project. The very
next day the Corps reversed itself and stated that we are not going to
start dredging without resolving the permit issues first, admitting
they did not have it resolved. Sadly, a few weeks ago when I gave the
Corps the opportunity to support my efforts to put their promise in
writing and delay actual dredging funds, they declined.
Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder citizens in Delaware do not trust the
economic justifications and environmental propositions the Corps makes.
It is no wonder our Department of Natural Resources insists on a
legally enforceable agreement with the Corps. I know we all hope the
DNREC, our environmental people and the Corps can reach a mutually
acceptable, legally enforceable agreement before the fiscal year 2001
begins; but until that time, I urge the House to withhold funding for
this project.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from
the gentleman from New Jersey and in strong support of the Delaware
River main channel deepening project. This project was included in the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget and is supported by Governor Ridge
and Governor Whitman.
In the early 1980s, Congress directed the Army Corps to study the
viability of modifying the channel. We authorized this and funded it in
1992. The final Environmental Impact Statement was filed by the Corps
in 1997; and it was approved by EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the
U.S. Geological Survey.
The Corps has spent $7 million on numerous studies over the past 6
years. Reports have been submitted on salinity, shellfish, sediments,
wetlands, groundwater, and oil spills; and all of these reports have
shown no significant impact on these areas of concern.
As for economic benefits, the Army Corps cost-benefit ratio is $1.40
for every dollar invested. There is also an unprecedented level of
involvement by beneficiaries. It is not only the oil companies who will
benefit, even though Sunoco and Valero have expressed support for this
project and are ready to take advantage of a deeper tier channel.
Additionally, there are almost 1,200 groups that support the deepening
of the Delaware River to 45 feet. They range from labor to shippers to
port groups. Virtually every facet of the community that benefits from
port commerce is supportive of this project.
Why does the Port of Philadelphia need to go to 45 feet? Because the
trend in the world is towards bigger ships. If we do not deepen the
Delaware, the region will be severely affected. We will lose jobs and
our port will become less competitive.
In addition to benefiting labor, oil companies, and shippers,
deepening only 5 more feet can potentially benefit consumers from Maine
to Maryland. Because of reduced transportation costs associated with
the deepening, oil companies could very well pass these lower costs on
to consumers in order to stay competitive. These savings by oil
companies can translate into reduced home heating oil and gas prices
for consumers.
As to the environmental issues associated with this project, first,
less lightering gives less of a chance for oil spills. Second, this
project provides for wetland restoration and beach fill projects built
with clean sand.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey has requested a
GAO report. He has asked that the money for this project be delayed
until a report is finished. However, my experience with the GAO as a
former chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
leads me to believe that this is beyond the purview of the GAO.
Typically, the GAO conducts more broad-based reviews which are
requested by committees of jurisdiction or mandated by law. The GAO
does not have the resources to respond to individual Member requests;
and it is highly unlikely, in my view, that a report would be available
within a year.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey, and I offer my strong support for this important project.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would simply conclude our side of the debate, Mr. Chairman, by
indicating that I respect the gentleman from New Jersey and those who
have spoken on his side very much, both in terms of their intelligence,
their passion on the issue, and their commitment for their
constituents. I happen, in this instance, however, to seriously
disagree with them. I believe that we have an authorized program, the
procedures and laws of this country have been followed; and I do think
that we ought to proceed. I do oppose the Andrews amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The bill as it presently is constituted is spend first, think later.
I think we should do the opposite, think first and then maybe spend
later.
We are being asked to invest nearly $30 million into a project that
is not economically proven, that is environmentally risky, and that is
fundamentally unfair to the people of southern New Jersey. Think first,
then maybe spend later. Join with us and join with the League of
Conservation Voters, Citizens Against Government Waste, Republicans and
Democrats in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I will insert into the Record reports
from the GAO which study other similar projects.

Report by the Comptroller General of the United States: Montana's Libby
Dam Project: More Study Needed Before Adding Generators and a
Reregulating Dam

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not shown that its
proposed project to add more generators to the Libby Dam and
a reregulation dam downstream is economically justified or
the best alternative for meeting Pacific Northwest
electricity peaking needs:
GAO questions the Corps method of calculating the project's
benefits. The Corps plans to reassess the benefit-cost ratio
using a better method and submit the results to the Congress
by early 1980.
Neither the Corps nor the Bonneville Power Administration
has adequately studied other was of meeting forecasted peak
power shortages. Combustion turbines, cogeneration, power
exchanges, load management, and peak pricing options should
be evaluated before the proposed project proceeds.
This report responds to a request from Senator Baucus.
____

Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States:
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Tellico Dam Project--Costs,
Alternatives, And Benefits

In January 1977 the nearly completed $116 million Tellico
Dam project was stopped because it would harm the habitat of
the snail darter--an endangered species of fish. Several
alternatives to the project have been proposed. However,
neither the current project nor alternatives are supported by
current benefit-cost analyses.
The Tennessee Valley Authority should update the remaining
benefit-cost data for the Tellico project and alternatives to
it. The Congress should prohibit the Authority from

[[Page H5265]]

further work on the project and should not act on the
proposed legislation to exempt the project from the
Endangered Species Act until more current information is
received.
____

Report by the U.S. General Accounting Office: Information on Corps of
Engineers' Clarence Cannon Dam and Mark Twain Lake Project

This report discusses the 1981 flooding along the Salt
River in northeast Missouri and the resulting damages above
and below the Corps of Engineers' Clarence Cannon Dam
project. It further discuses the potential impact hydropower
operations of the dam will have on downstream landowner, and
the current cost and schedule estimates for completing the
project.
____

Report to the Honorable George Miller, United States House of
Representatives by the U.S. General Accounting Office: Proposed Pricing
of Irrigation Water From California's Central Valley New Melones
Reservoir

The New Melones Reservoir in California is the latest
addition to the Bureau of Reclamation's vast network of dams,
reservoirs, canals, and pumping stations known as the Central
Valley Project. Since New Melones is part of the CVP, the
Bureau adds its irrigation construction, operation, and
maintenance costs to other CVP costs. The entire irrigation
costs are then used in calculating rates for water repayment.
As a result, New Melones irrigation rates are lower than
they would be if its water users had to repay construction
and operating costs of the reservoir. Costs associated with
New Melones will eventually cause the rates of other CVP
users to increase. Because of existing long-term contracts,
however, the increased rates cannot be passed on to other
users until their contracts expire or are amended.
____

Report to the Honorable James H. Weaver House of Representatives by the
Comptroller General of the United States: Corps of Engineers Should
Reevaluate the Elk Creek Project's Benefits and Costs

The Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 1982 estimates of
benefits and costs for the Elk Creek project, under
construction in Jackson County, Oregon, show an excess of
benefits over costs.
This report questions most of the Corps' estimates of
benefits to be obtained from the project's flood control,
water supply, recreation, irrigation, and area redevelopment
purposes. It also questions some of the Corps' project cost
estimates. These issues affect the benefit cost value
reported to the Congress in support of the project's economic
feasibility.
GAO recommends that the Corps resolve these matters and
recalculate project benefits and cost.

Report to the Congress of the United States by the Comptroller General:
Congressional Guidance Needed on Federal Cost Share of Water Resource
Projects When Project Benefits Are Not Widespread

Many water resource projects provide benefits to large
segments of the country; however, the Corps of Engineers and
the Soil Conservation Service have built some projects that
primarily benefit only a few landowners or businesses.
For Corps and Service projects, the non-Federal entity is
seldom required to share a larger portion of project cost to
compensate for these special benefits, such as land
enhancement or increased local taxes. The Congress needs to
clarify its intent regarding cost sharing on such projects.
Non-Federal entities provide land, easements, rights-of-
way, and relocate utilities. The estimated costs of such
items are shown as the non-Federal cost share in project
feasibility studies. GAO found that the estimated non-Federal
cost share for Service projects usually contained extraneous
cost items which are not actual project costs. Such costs
inflate the total project cost and also make the non-Federal
``share'' appear much higher than it actually is. GAO says
this practice should be stopped.
____

Chapter 3: Some Water Resource Projects Do Not Provide Widespread
Benefits

The Corps and SCS, after congressional approval, finance,
construct, and often maintain water resource projects. In
some instances, these projects have only one primary
beneficiary or provide special localized benefits--such as
increased earning potential or extraordinary land
enhancement--to certain groups, businesses, or individuals
primarily at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. However cost
sharing between Federal and non-Federal entities for these
projects is generally the same as for other projects
providing more general widespread benefits.
Legislation and procedures generally require local project
sponsors to provide the necessary land, easements, rights-of-
way, and utility relocations for most projects except flood
control reservoirs. For projects providing benefits such as
beach erosion control, the local sponsor is also required to
contribute a designated percentage of the total project
construction cost. If the land, easements, and rights-of-way
do not fulfill the required non-Federal contribution, cash
contributions are required. The traditional formulas
establishing the required non-Federal share have evolved over
the years as new agencies, programs, and project purposes
have been authorized by the Congress.
Although many variations in the traditional cost-sharing
formulas exist, the requirements are reasonably well defined
and are usually met.
However, when the projects benefit only a small group or
yield significant secondary or special localized benefits,
the Federal Government rarely requires a larger percentage of
project cost from local sponsors. Corps policies and
procedures (as discussed in ch. 2) address limited
beneficiary situations, but their requirements are vague and
inconsistently applied at the various districts. Although SCS
recognizes that these situations occur, their policies and
procedures do not address these issues.
Consequently, some project beneficiaries have reaped
significant special localized benefits at the Federal tax-
payers' expense. The following synopses briefly identify and
discuss several water resource projects which we believe
provide significant special or localized benefits to
identifiable beneficiaries. Additional information concerning
each project is included in appendix I.

SOME PROJECTS HAVE ONLY A FEW BENEFICIARIES

In 4 of the 14 cases we reviewed a high percentage of
project benefits went to only a few people or businesses.
Estimated project costs ranged from about $7 million to $111
million.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Project name/; purpose and Total cost Cost Number of
location (thousands) (thousands) beneficiaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue River Channel Flood 111,000 94,100 (\1\) 281
control, Missouri.............
Hendry County Flood control, 17,719 13,190 (\2\) 21
Florida.......................
Southern Branch of Elizabeth 7,634 5,282 2
River Navigation, Virginia....
York and Pamunkey Rivers 50,500 47,200 (\3\)3
Navigation, Virginia..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One company will receive 55 percent of total project benefits.
\2\ Four landowners have control over 61 percent of benefited area.
\3\ One company will receive 86 percent of total project benefits.

York and Pamunkey Rivers Navigation Project
The York and Pamunkey Rivers Navigation Project in Virginia
is an example of a proposed project which will benefit a
limited number of identified users. (See p. 61). The project
was internally approved by the Corps in 1973, but has not yet
been authorized by the Congress. Although it is expected to
provide transportation savings to only three users,
additional non-Federal contributions were not recommended.
The recommended plan provides a two-lane navigation
channel. The estimated total project cost is $50.5 million of
which the non-Federal share is estimated at $3.3 million (6.5
percent). The non-Federal share is for lands, levees,
spillways, relocations, berthing areas, and access channels.
The project has only three identified users, two of which
are expected to receive 98.5 percent of the total project
benefits. It provides a more economically efficient method of
transporting oil to the American Oil Company and the Virginia
Electric and Power Company. It is also expected to maintain
depth in the York River entrance channel sufficient for
present and future use by the Navy.
The estimated annual benefits for each project beneficiary
are shown below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficiary Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Oil Company............................ $17,013,800 86.4
Virginia Electric and Power Company............. 2,386,200 12.1
U.S. Navy....................................... 300,000 1.5
-----------------------
Total..................................... 19,700,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional non-Federal contributions were not recommended
by the Corps despite the fact that the project is expected to
benefit only three users and one user is expected to receive
86 percent of the estimated annual savings. One of the
beneficiaries, American Oil Company, could completely repay
the project cost in 3 years with its annual transportation
savings. Instead, the Nation's taxpayers, if this project is
approved, would have to pay for 98.5 percent of the project.

IDENTIFIABLE BENEFICIARIES SHOULD MAKE ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Some projects built by the Corps and SCS provided
significant special localized benefits to direct,
identifiable beneficiaries. These benefits can accrue in the
form of increased earning potential, land enhancement, or in
the case of a State or local entity, increased local real
estate and income tax bases.
In these situations, the Federal Government is subsidizing
individuals or groups of individuals who often have the
ability (because of increased earnings) to make additional
contributions.
Pohick Watershed Flood Prevention Project
The SCS Pohick Watershed project in Fairfax County,
Virginia, provides significant increased income to
housing developers and increased tax revenue to Fairfax
County. (See p. 69.) The project is creating choice
lakefront property within 17 miles of Washington, D.C. SCS
did not require any additional non-Federal contributions
for these benefits.
The Pohick Watershed was the first SCS flood prevention
project undertaken in a watershed being totally converted
from rural to urban land use. It was authorized in 1968
because of the anticipated rapid change in land use. The plan
was to supplement an overall development plan for an area
rapidly converting from nearly natural cover conditions to an
area of intensive urbanization.
In June 1970, SCS estimated the project construction and
installation would cost

[[Page H5266]]

$1,878,520 with the Federal share being $904,142 and the non-
Federal share $974,378. The project consists of seven
floodwater retarding structures and is about 70 percent
complete.
The project provides special local benefits to a small
number of housing developers. After the SCS project was
authorized and construction started, developers began
building large subdivisions in this formerly undeveloped
area. In addition to the homesites surrounding the lakes,
many sites are directly on the lakeshores. At project
completion, the seven lakes formed by the floodwater
retarding structures will create 571 choice lakefront
homesites. Subdivisions have already been completed around
four of the seven lakes. According to local real estate
agents and county officials, homes in Fairfax County with a
lake view sell at a $2,000 premium; therefore, the developers
could receive additional income of $1,142,000 because of the
lakefront sites. One development company building a
subdivision around one of the lakes paid $104,000 to increase
the lake size. The subdivision has 150 lakefront homesites,
and as a result of the sites, the company received additional
gross income of $300,000.
The Fairfax County real estate tax base has increased
greatly during the period 1970 to 1979. Overall, the total
county assessed value has increased 146 percent while the
value in the Pohick Watershed area has increased about 1,800
percent. County officials did not know how much the project
contributed to the 1,800-percent increase in value. However,
with the advent of the SCS project and a county sewage system
the project area developed rapidly. Real estate values in the
project area increased $1.1 billion from 1970 to 1979
resulting in additional annual county tax revenues of
approximately $17 million.
SCS has not required additional non-Federal contributions
to compensate for these special localized benefits. We
believe the local sponsor should have contributed more
because there were readily identifiable beneficiaries who
receive significant secondary benefits because of the
project.
Hendry County Flood Control Project
In Hendry County, Florida, the Corps has planned a $17.7
million flood control and water supply project which will
benefit a total of 21 local farmers/corporations--four owners
control 61 percent of the benefited land (See p. 46.)
Although the Corps considers this project a flood control
project, it will also provide major drainage benefits to vast
amounts of marginal grassland which can then be used for more
intensified ranching and farming operations (land
enhancement). It also will increase the county's tax revenue.
Even though the project had identifiable beneficiaries and
may result in substantial land enhancement, the Corps did not
request additional non-Federal contributions.
Special localized benefits will accrue to identifiable
beneficiaries
The Corps analysis of future land use acknowledges that the
project will permit 5,400 acres--presently used for pasture,
rangeland, woodland, and truck crops cultivation--to be
upgraded for sugarcane production. The four largest
landowners have stated that once the project is complete,
they plan to grow sugarcane on land that was previously less
productive. The largest landowner, a corporation that owns 34
percent of the project land, stated that the project will
greatly improve its economic potential because an additional
3,200 acres of sugarcane could be grown on land previously
used for a less productive purpose. A large sugar company,
the second largest landowner, plans to move current cattle
operations to its 17,846 acres in the water supply area. This
move will allow them to develop their present ranch near
Clewiston, Florida, into sugarcane, which they indicated
would be more profitable. The largest family farm landowner
also plans to convert 960 acres of land from cattle to
sugarcane when the project is completed. Another rancher
indicated plans to produce sugarcane on land currently used
as pasture but has not determined the exact acres involved.
In addition, the project could provide a large land
development company an estimated additional $18 million gross
income from sales. In 1975 the company transferred 2,560 . .
.

* * * * *

conclusions

When Federal Water resource developments were first
authorized, the programs were designed to encourage
transportation, settlement, and economic development of the
Nation. As early as 1920 the Congress recognized that some
water resource projects provided a high percentage of
``special local benefits,'' and in the 1920 River and Harbor
Appropriation Act voiced its intent to require a higher non-
Federal cost share for projects with a high percentage of
special local benefits.
Conditions have since changed. Much of the Nation is now
highly developed and new national concerns and priorities
have surfaced (energy and the environment) and there is
increasing competition for the Nation's resources. Because of
these changing priorities it is even more important that the
Federal agencies carefully evaluate the local versus the
national benefits provided by each proposed project and
consider this when recommending to the Congress the non-
Federal cost share.
Both the Corps and SCS have financed, constructed, and
sometimes maintained water resources projects which benefit a
very few individuals or businesses or provide a significant
special or localized benefits to an identifiable group of
beneficiaries.
Although both agencies recognize these situations, they
have rarely required additional non-Federal contributions
(over and above established standard cost-sharing formulas)
as compensation. Consequently, the Federal taxpayer, most of
whom will receive no direct project benefit, pays for most of
the associated project cost. We believe the Corps and SCS
should have required additional non-Federal funds for each of
the projects discussed in this report.
As discussed in chapter 2, the law requires that the Corps
identify and discuss the national project benefits vs.
limited special benefits and recommend appropriate non-
Federal cooperation.
While section 2 of the 1920 River and Harbor Appropriation
Act literally only requires that the Federal agency include
its findings of local versus national benefits and recommend
what the local cost share should be on the basis of these
benefits, its purpose is to secure a higher non-Federal
contribution under certain circumstances. We believe that the
Corps' multiple use policy (discussed in ch. 2) does not
fully conform with the intent of section 2. Further the Corps
did not specifically compare local versus national benefits
in each of the studies we reviewed. We believe that a
separate discussion of these benefits should be included in
each feasibility study to fully inform the Congress of the
nature of the project benefits and any additional non-Federal
contributions which should be required.
The Secretary of Agriculture also has discretionary
authority under the Watershed Protection and Flood Protection
Act of 1954 to require additional non-Federal contribution
for projects with limited benefits. (See p. 13.)
We believe that the Federal agencies should require local
sponsors to share a larger percentage of project cost when
significant special local benefits (secondary benefits)
accrue to project beneficiaries.
In our draft report we proposed that the secretary of the
Army direct the Corps to provide the Congress more detailed
information concerning the nature of project benefits as
required by section 2 of the River and Harbor Appropriation
Act. We also proposed that the Corps clarify its procedures
and establish more specific criteria to help the District
offices determine when a larger non-Federal share of project
cost should be required.
Further, in our draft report we proposed that the Secretary
of Agriculture use his discretionary authority under the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 and
collect additional non-Federal funds for projects with
limited benefits. We recommended that the secretary direct
the SCS Administrator to prepare regulations which recognize
``special beneficiary situations,'' and ensure that each
office applies these regulations when preparing future
studies.

agency comments and our evaluation

On August 7, 1980, we met with Corps officials to obtain
oral comments because the agency could not respond within the
30 days allowed for submitting written comments. However, in
a September 8, 1980, letter (see app. II), the Corps provided
written comments on our draft report. The Corps did not
concur with out recommendations, providing the following
overall comments.
The Corps stated that:
``The Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, recognized that
fact that flood damages destroy portions of the national
wealth and adversely affect national productive capacity.
That recognition has been followed by all studies since
that time. Flood damages to anyone in the nation are
measured and counted as benefits in this national program.
The present term for these types of benefits as approved
by the United States Water Resources Council, is
``National Economic Development Benefits'' (NED). Your
report does not follow this definition for national
benefits, and thus gives rise to considerable confusion.
It also suggests implicitly the allocation of costs to
beneficial outputs which are not now recognized in the
computation of benefit-cost ratios or in the Federal
decision process.''
We are familiar with the Water Resources Council's
terminology but chose not to use it for several reasons.
First, many of the ``National Economic Development''
benefits discussed in the report are secondary type benefits
which directly accrue to individuals, businesses, or
communities around a project, such as land enhancement and
intensified or changed land use. Granted, such benefits also
tend to increase the economic value of the national output,
but the impact of such benefits is much greater for those
beneficiaries whose land or income is directly affected or
improved.
We believe that the report message is more clearly
communicated to most readers by stressing the immediate
impact these benefits have on the direct beneficiaries.
Therefore, the report addresses these as special localized or
secondary benefits (benefits which go beyond project
purposes). For example, the Corps letter points out that
flood damage destroys portions of the national wealth and
adversely affects national wealth and national productive
capacity. Projects are authorized and built to prevent such
damage. However, in addition to flood damage prevention, the
same projects often provide substantial secondary benefits
which go beyond

[[Page H5267]]

the authorized project purpose. In addition to flood damage
prevention (a NED benefit which is related to the project
purpose), secondary benefits such as significant land
enhancement and changed or intensified land use accrue to
individuals, businesses, and communities located around a
project. These benefits also contribute to increased national
productivity; however, the impact of the benefit is much
greater to the individual whose income or property is
directly affected or improved.
Secondly, many of those who read our reports are not
necessarily familiar with the Council's precise definitions
which Federal agencies use in their planning.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote; and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gekas

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas:
Page 39, after line 19, insert the following new title:

TITLE VII--RESOURCE GOVERNANCE

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Resource
Governance Act of 2000''.

SEC. 702. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) energy prices have risen dramatically, leading to
significant harm to particular sectors of the economy;
(2) an affordable domestic energy supply is vital to the
continued growth and vitality of our Nation's economy;
(3) an uninterrupted supply of oil and other energy is
necessary to protect the United States national security
interests; and
(4) the United States continued dependence on foreign
sources of energy, particularly on the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), for the majority of its
petroleum and energy needs is harmful to our national
security and will not guarantee lower fuel prices and protect
our economy.

SEC. 703. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

There is established the National Energy Self-Sufficiency
Commission (in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 704. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

(a) Duties.--The duties of the Commission are--
(1) to investigate and study issues and problems relating
to issues involving the importation of and dependence on
foreign sources of energy;
(2) to evaluate proposals and current arrangements with
respect to such issues and problems with the goal of seeking
out ways to make the United States self-sufficient in the
production of energy by the year 2010;
(3) to explore whether alternate sources of energy such as
ethanol, solar power, electricity, natural gas, coal,
hydrogen, wind energy, and any other forms of alternative
power sources should be considered, including other potential
and actual sources;
(4) to investigate the affordability of oil exploration and
drilling in areas which currently are not being used for
drilling, whether because of the cost of doing so, because of
current law, or because of environmental regulation that may
prohibit such drilling;
(5) to appear at any congressional oversight hearing before
the proper congressional oversight committee to testify as to
the progress and operation of the Commission and its
findings;
(6) to consider tax credits and other financial incentives,
along with expanded drilling in areas such as the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge and offshore, to help promote and
establish the viability and research of alternative forms of
energy and domestic oil exploration;
(7) to prepare and submit to the Congress and the President
a report in accordance with section 709; and
(8) to take into account the adverse environmental impact
of its proposals.
(b) Limitation.--This title shall not permit the Commission
to recommend an increase in taxes or other revenues or import
restrictions on oil or other commodities.

SEC. 705. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 9 members as follows:
(1) 3 members appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall
be designated as chairman by the President.
(2) 2 members appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate.
(3) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate.
(4) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(5) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the House
of Representatives.
(b) Term.--Members of the Commission shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission.
(c) Quorum.--5 members of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum, but a lesser number may conduct meetings.
(d) Appointment Deadline.--The first appointments made
under subsection (a) shall be made within 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(e) First Meeting.--The first meeting of the Commission
shall be called by the chairman and shall be held within 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Vacancy.--A vacancy on the Commission resulting from
the death or resignation of a member shall not affect its
powers and shall be filled in the same manner in which the
original appointment was made.
(g) Continuation of Membership.--If any member of the
Commission who was appointed to the Commission as a Member of
Congress or as an officer or employee of a government leaves
that office, or if any member of the Commission who was not
appointed in such a capacity becomes an officer or employee
of a government, the member may continue as a member of the
Commission for not longer than the 90-day period beginning on
the date the member leaves that office or becomes such an
officer or employee, as the case may be.

SEC. 706. COMPENSATION.

(a) Pay.--
(1) Nongovernment employees.--Each member of the Commission
who is not otherwise employed by the United States Government
shall be entitle to receive the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which he or she is engaged in the actual performance of
duties as a member of the Commission.
(2) Government employees.--A member of the Commission who
is an officer or employee of the United States Government
shall serve without additional compensation.
(b) Travel.--Members of the Commission shall be reimbursed
for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses
incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

SEC. 707. STAFF OF COMMISSION; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.

(a) Staff.--
(1) Appointment.--The chairman of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
personnel as are necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties. The employment of an executive director
shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
(2) Compensation.--The chairman of the Commission may fix
the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
that title.
(b) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure
temporary and intermittent services of experts and
consultants under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code.

SEC. 708. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings and Meetings.--The Commission or, on
authorization of the Commission, a member of the Commission
may hold such hearings, sit and act at such time and places,
take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the
Commission considers appropriate. The Commission or a member
of the Commission may administer oaths or affirmations to
witnesses appearing before it.
(b) Official Data.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal department, agency, or court information
necessary to enable it to carry out this title. Upon request
of the chairman of the Commission, the head of a Federal
department or agency or chief judge of a Federal court shall
furnish such information to the Commission.
(c) Facilities and Support Services.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis such facilities and support services as
the Commission may request. Upon request of the Commission,
the head of a Federal department or agency may make any of
the facilities or services of the agency available to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its
duties under this title.
(d) Expenditures and Contracts.--The Commission or, on
authorization of the Commission, a member of the Commission
may make expenditures and enter into contracts for the
procurement of such supplies, services, and property as the
Commission or member considers appropriate for the purposes
of carrying out the duties of the Commission. Such
expenditures and contracts may be made only to such extent or
in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.
(e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal departments and agencies of the United States.
(f) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.

SEC. 709. REPORT.

The Commission shall submit to the Congress and the
President a report not later

[[Page H5268]]

than 2 years after the date of its first meeting. The report
shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and
conclusions of the Commission, together with its
recommendations for such legislative or administrative action
as it considers appropriate.

SEC. 710. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is 30
days after the date on which it submits its report under
section 709.

SEC. 711. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated $3,500,000 to carry
out this title for each fiscal year for the duration of the
Commission.

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) reserves a
point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair, but I do not thank my
friend, the gentleman from California, for reserving a point of order,
but I understand.
There is no question about it, I say to my colleagues, that the
current crisis and all the crises that came before it with respect to
the rising tide of prices for gas at the pump have come about because
of our dependence on foreign oil. That is the short and the tall of it.
We are dependent for our sustenance in this country on foreign oil;
more than 55 percent of it comes from other countries.
What does that mean? It means that our energy policy as a Nation is
reduced to sending an ambassador to the foreign countries involved, to
OPEC in particular, to beg them to produce more oil. Our policy is,
please sell us more oil. Please produce more oil. That is intolerable,
and it is embarrassing to the greatness of our Nation to have to so
depend.
So my amendment is one which will allow ourselves to pledge as a
Nation that within 10 years, we will become self-sufficient in energy.
How? By appointment now of a nine-member, blue ribbon commission, much
like the one that was appointed and worked to save Social Security in
the 1970s and 1980s and which did save the then tottering Social
Security program. This blue ribbon commission would be empowered to
look at every conceivable source of domestic, self-induced and self-
prepared energy for the use of our people. This would include, of
course, the Alaskan oil fields, the ANWR reserves. It would include tax
incentives for domestic drilling. It would include exploration of
natural gas and solar energy and water energy and ethanol and every
other conceivable type of energy that has been proved to be somewhat,
if not greatly, sufficient and efficient for the uses of our people.
This commission would report back, and then we would be on the road
to self-sufficiency within 10 years. Does that sound spectacularly
narrow in its scope within 10 years to be self-sufficient? We went to
the moon in 10 years; we now have discovered there is water on Mars,
and no one can tell me that if we did not focus on this crisis after
crisis type of situation, that we could not complete a program within
10 years and recommend it to the Congress and bring it about so that
our people will have no need any longer to depend on foreign oil.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that is bred of common sense. I
have noticed that over the last 6 or 7 weeks, piece by piece, the
administration is moving ever more closely to the adoption of some of
the facets of what I have been speaking of.

{time} 2100

For instance, right after I introduced a bill and others started
talking about Alaskan exploration, Joe Lockhart of the White House
denounced it as being something that the White House would not be
interested in developing.
Very recently, little bits and pieces have come out of the White
House where the exploration of ANWR seems more feasible now. Where 7
months ago and a year ago there was no talk of tax credits for domestic
drilling, now dribbles of information coming out of the White House
indicate that they could, yes, indulge in some tax credits for domestic
drilling.
We can do it, I say to my colleagues. We can enforce a speed-up
program of development of our own resources, and fairly soon we will
see that OPIC will be out of the question as a menacing feature of our
existence today, because that is what it is. It is endangering our
national security, it endangers our domestic security, and prevents us
from doing what Americans do best, to be self-sufficient, to be
independent of foreign influences, to be independent of the need to
look to other countries to sustain our way of life.
Our way of life is important enough and precious enough that if we
can put our minds to it, we will preserve it and enhance our way of
life with energy independence for all time.
I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to reconsider his
intention to raise a point of order. This is too vital for that.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized to speak on
the point of order.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely legislating on an
appropriations bill. I make a point of order that the amendment
violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI, which provides that an amendment to a
general appropriations bill is not in order if it changes existing law.
The rule states very clearly, ``An amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment authorizes the creation of a new commission, and is
clearly in violation of the rule.
Therefore, I must insist on the point of order. I hate to do that to
one of my dear colleagues and classmates, but if I made an exception
here, I would have to make it in many, many other cases.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may be heard.
Mr. GEKAS. I may be heard, but I may be heard agreeing with the
gentleman from California, that it indeed is out of order.
So, with a song in my heart, I withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to use this time to engage in a colloquy with
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
that I am going to withdraw, but I hope that the ranking member and the
committee will work with me to get it in conference.
I have had several Members call me concerning my amendment because
they think it is so appropriate at this time. I would like to take a
moment to discuss this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, independent truckers in my home State of Florida have
experienced difficulty earning an honest living as a result of the
escalating gas prices. The average independent truckers earn roughly
$35,000 a year. With the cost of the fuel skyrocketing, these
independent truckers spend approximately $15,000 a year on fuel. As a
result, they are faced with making incredibly tough decisions that
impact their ability to take care of their families. Almost half of
their income goes to gas.
As recently as last week, a constituent called my office to tell me
that his truck will be repossessed soon. It is sitting in the front of
his house idle because he simply cannot afford the cost of the fuel. At
one point his wife, who was a homemaker, had to leave their children
and take a second job just so her husband could afford to purchase
fuel.
This amendment is an attempt to emphasize the importance and urgency
of the problem. In addition to giving the President the authority to
tap into the petroleum reserve, we should be aggressively engaging in
research that allows us to use cost-efficient alternative energy. The
intent is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil so in the future
Americans will not be subject to the ups and downs of the crude oil
market.
As the administration pointed out, with mounting evidence of global
climate change and concerns over oil

[[Page H5269]]

prices, the DOE's renewable energy budget is $11 million below the
current appropriation, and $106 million, or 23 percent, below the
President's request. This shortsightedness undercuts our Nation's
efforts to implement a 21st century energy policy.
I understand that the point of order is important, but we have a
responsibility in Congress to do our part to make sure that our energy
policy is pro-American, and making sure that we are not dependent upon
foreign oil.
I thank the gentleman very much for giving me the opportunity to
discuss this issue. I am hoping that on this amendment, we can work as
we go to conference and it can be included.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's commitment to her
constituents, and also, in terms of her attempt in trying to begin to
solve the energy crisis we face in this country. I do look forward to
working with the gentlewoman on this issue as we approach conference,
but obviously I cannot make a commitment to the gentlewoman here on the
House floor. Again, I do appreciate the gentlewoman raising the issue
this evening.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherwood

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment printed in House Report 106-701 offered by Mr.
Sherwood:
Page 39, lines 6 through 19, amend section 606 to read as
follows:
Sec. 606. (a) Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Amendments.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is
amended--
(1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as
follows:

``authorization of appropriations

``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years 2000 through 2003 such sums as may be necessary
to implement this part.'';
(2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``March 31,
2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30,
2003''; and
(3) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``March 31,
2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30,
2003''.
(b) Purchase of Oil From Marginal Wells.--
(1) Purchase of oil from marginal wells.--Part B of Title I
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6232 et
seq.) is amended by adding the following new section after
section 168:

``purchase of oil from marginal wells

``Sec. 169. (a) In General.--From amounts authorized under
section 166, in any case in which the price of oil decreases
to an amount less than $15.00 per barrel (an amount equal to
the annual average well head price per barrel for all
domestic crude oil), adjusted for inflation, the Secretary
may purchase oil from a marginal well at $15.00 per barrel,
adjusted for inflation.
``(b) Definition of Marginal Well.--The term ``marginal
well'' means a well that--
``(1) has an average daily production of 15 barrels or
less;
``(2) has an average daily production of 25 barrels or less
with produced water accounting for 95 percent or more of
total production; or
``(3) produces heavy oil with an API gravity less than 20
degrees.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents for the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 168 the following:

``Sec. 169. Purchase of oil from marginal wells.''.
(c) Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--
(1) Amendment.--Title I of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act is amended by--
(A) redesignating part D as part E;
(B) redesignating section 181 as section 191; and
(C) inserting after part C the following new part D:

``Part D--Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

``establishment

``Sec. 181. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the Secretary may establish, maintain, and operate in
the Northeast a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. A Reserve
established under this part is not a component of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve established under part B of this
title. A Reserve established under this part shall contain no
more than 2 million barrels of petroleum distillate.
``(b) For the purposes of this part--
``(1) the term `Northeast' means the States of Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; and
``(2) the term `petroleum distillate' includes heating oil
and diesel fuel.

``authority

``Sec. 182. To the extent necessary or appropriate to carry
out this part, the Secretary may--
``(1) purchase, contract for, lease, or otherwise acquire,
in whole or in part, storage and related facilities, and
storage services;
``(2) use, lease, maintain, sell, or otherwise dispose of
storage and related facilities acquired under this part;
``(3) acquire by purchase, exchange (including exchange of
petroleum product from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or
received as royalty from Federal lands), lease, or otherwise,
petroleum distillate for storage in the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve;
``(4) store petroleum distillate in facilities not owned by
the United States;
``(5) sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of petroleum
distillate from the Reserve established under this part; and
``(6) notwithstanding paragraph (5), on terms the Secretary
considers reasonable, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of
petroleum distillate from the Reserve established under this
part in order to maintain the quality or quantity of the
petroleum distillate in the Reserve or to maintain the
operational capability of the Reserve.

``conditions for release; plan

``Sec. 183. (a) The Secretary may release petroleum
distillate from the Reserve under section 182(5) only in the
event of--
``(1) a severe energy supply disruption;
``(2) a severe price increase; or
``(3) another emergency affecting the Northeast,
which the President determines to merit a release from the
Reserve.
``(b) Within 45 days of the date of the enactment of this
section, the Secretary shall transmit to the President and,
if the President approves, to the Congress a plan
describing--
``(1) the acquisition of storage and related facilities or
storage services for the Reserve;
``(2) the acquisition of petroleum distillate for storage
in the Reserve;
``(3) the anticipated methods of disposition of petroleum
distillate from the Reserve; and
``(4) the estimated costs of establishment, maintenance,
and operation of the Reserve.
The storage of petroleum distillate in a storage facility
that meets existing environmental requirements is not a
`major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment' as that term is used in section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

``northeast home heating oil reserve account

``Sec. 184. (a) Upon a decision of the Secretary of Energy
to establish a Reserve under this part, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall establish in the Treasury of the United States
an account know as the `Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
Account' (referred to in this section as the `Account').
``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the
Account any amounts appropriated to the Account and any
receipts from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of
petroleum distillate from the Reserve.
``(c) The Secretary of Energy may obligate amounts in the
Account to carry out activities under this part without the
need for further appropriation, and amounts available to the
Secretary of Energy for obligation under this section shall
remain available without fiscal year limitation.

``exemptions

``Sec. 185. An action taken under this part--
``(1) is not subject to the rulemaking requirements of
section 523 of this Act, section 501 of the Department of
Energy Organization Act, or section 553 of title 5, United
States Code; and
``(2) is not subject to laws governing the Federal
procurement of goods and services, including the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (including
the Competition in Contracting Act) and the Small Business
Act.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
part D of title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply substitutes the language in Section
606, which contains a 1-year reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, with the text of H.R. 2884, which passed the House 416 to 8.
This House-passed bill reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
through fiscal year 2003. Additionally, it provides new discretion for
the Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from marginal domestic wells
known as stripper wells when the average market price falls below $15
per barrel.
Finally, it provides new authority for the Secretary of Energy to
disburse home heating oil from any future Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve during a national emergency, a regional emergency.

[[Page H5270]]

The Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, which will be a separate entity
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, will be authorized to contain no
more than 2 million barrels of petroleum distillate. Additionally, the
reserve may be employed during severe energy disruptions, extreme price
hikes, or when the President determines an energy emergency merits its
use in the Northeast.
The bottom line is that this amendment will help to preserve and
enhance our domestic energy-producing infrastructure, and help provide
reasonably-priced home heating fuel oil during supply shortages.
It is simple, having more domestic oil production and supply capacity
will result in lower prices at the pump and less dependence on foreign
oil.
This last winter we in the Northeast were feeling the economic sting
of an oil crisis due to high heating oil and diesel prices. That was
our first warning. Now, with severely increased gasoline prices across
the Nation, the rest of the country is feeling the pain that we in the
Northeast have experienced for several months.
The question on everyone's mind is, why did we not see this coming,
and why were we not prepared to meet it? I am here today to work with
the Members in this Chamber to find the answers to these questions;
also, to make sure that we will never be held hostage again by Middle
East oil princes. These are the same friends for whom a decade ago we
risked the lives of our sons and daughters to protect against Iraqi
aggression.
The bottom line, and this is probably the most important thing that
will be said tonight, is that we lack a coherent national energy policy
to insulate us from the volatility of these markets.
During the 1998-1999 time frame, our Nation lost 500,000 barrels of
production capacity every day due to the failure of marginal stripper
wells to be economically viable. This amendment allows the Secretary of
Energy to purchase oil from stripper wells when prices are low so they
can adequately operate during extreme price drops, and our Nation's new
heating oil reserve can be filled more cheaply.
This is an excellent bill which will help maintain the Nation's oil
production capacity when prices are low, and provide relief to
homeowners when heating prices are high and in short supply. I strongly
urge the Secretary of Energy to utilize the new authority given him
with the establishment of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve and the
reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to use these
reserves as pressure release valves during energy crises.
Support of this measure is a step in the right direction towards
solving our current gas price crisis, which we are all suffering
through. It is simple: The more domestic oil supply capacity we can
maintain, the lower the prices will be at the pump.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan, prudent, and timely
measure so that relief can be brought to the pocketbook of the American
consumer.
In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for all their
hard work in crafting this legislation, and the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) for his leadership on the issue.
I urge passage of this very commonsense, bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would seek to claim the time, on the
understanding that no other Member is seeking the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky) is recognized for 15 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on the remarks on the rule earlier, we
find ourselves with an amendment that I do support that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has offered. But I would want to
remind Members of the history of this House in legislative action over
the last several weeks.
First of all, we had an amendment that was offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to the Interior bill about a week ago. His
proposal was essentially to fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
that the gentleman would seek authorization for in his legislation. The
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was defeated by
two votes in this body literally a week ago.
Additionally, this body has essentially already passed through the
authorization process the amendment that the gentleman has already put
forth, so we are for a second time now stating a proposition that to
date the majority in the other body has refused to act on.
I would further point out that in full committee, when the energy and
water bill was considered during the past week, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), in trying to break this logjam, whether it
be in this body or in the other body, offered an amendment for a 1-year
extension of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was essentially
unanimously agreed to by the committee.
Under the amendment, her language stripped out ``and a full 3-year
authorization is entered into.''
Again, I support what the gentleman is doing. I would simply
encourage people to remember that the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick) was active on this issue and offered her amendment a week
ago. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was denied on a two-vote
margin in this House funding for one of the propositions the gentleman
put forth, and a majority in the other body, again, refuses to act.
I appreciate again the gentleman's initiative, but there is, again,
bipartisan support for what is taking place here tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for offering this amendment. It is similar to an amendment
that we reported out of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on a
bipartisan basis.
Mr. Chairman, it was debated and voted on in the House, and passed I
think in the neighborhood of 400 votes for and five or six votes
against. It is an amendment that is in conference now with the Senate
on the reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the
Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1992.
It is a classic compromise in that it has the heating oil reserve in
the Northeast, which would be filled most likely with fuel oil. It has
for the Southwest in the production region the ability for the
Secretary of Energy to purchase stripper well oil, which is oil that
comes from wells that produce less than 10 barrels a day when the price
of oil falls below $15 a barrel on the world market, if that would ever
happen again.

{time} 2115

So we get something for the production sector; we get something for
the consuming sector. It is bipartisan. It passed the House
overwhelmingly earlier this year.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend again the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Sherwood) for offering it tonight, and I hope that we would adopt
it unanimously.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sherwood-
Markey-Barton Energy and Water amendment. It just makes so much sense.
I would say in a Nation like ours where we had a condition like we did
this past winter, shame on us for not having something available that
could meet the urgent and pressing needs of American families.
In the Northeast, it was devastating. We had families that could not
afford to pay the heating bill. We had families that were suffering
because of the failure on the part of so many who they have every right
to expect to be responsive to their needs; and quite frankly, we just
were not.

[[Page H5271]]

This is an amendment that will address that need in a very
responsible way. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my
friend who preceded me, said, this is a delicate compromise that has
been worked out on a bipartisan basis. It is something that, for all
the right reasons, deserves our very strong support. I ask my
colleagues to do just that, give it strong support.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this winter we had severe price disruptions in the
Northeast that would be almost unbelievable if we had not experienced
them. In a period of 60 days, home heating oil, which all the old
people depend on in the Northeast, we do not have any gas mains and
home heating oil is the heating source of choice, went from 80 cents a
gallon to $1.80 a gallon. People could not fund that in their budgets.
Diesel fuel for trucks and tractors and farm equipment and
snowmobiles and school buses went from $1.30 to $2.60 per gallon. Now,
there is no real understandable reason for a price spike of this
magnitude. What happened, we had a little shortage and then because
there was a shortage, they got speculating on the New York Merc and
this price was run up to double its historic record and double what we
were expecting for the winter.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to put some things in
place that will help this from happening again. If we could keep these
stripper wells in production during low-price periods, we will have
that much more domestic production. If we can have the Northeast
Heating Reserve, that will be some hedge against this happening again.
These are things that we need to do. We need to become more self-
sufficient. I think that is a much bigger discussion for another day.
But we have to look at our drilling policies and find out how we got in
this position where we have all of these reserves, but we do not have
refinery capacity enough and we do not have drilling capacity enough.
We need to look these policies over down the road and develop a very
comprehensive energy policy.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Pennsylvania has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a national debate that is going to
take awhile. Tonight might be the start of that. People in my district
certainly cannot put in another winter like we had last winter. I do
not think people in Chicago want to put in another summer like they are
having right now with $2.50 gasoline. We do not want to go back to
$2.60 diesel fuel. These are problems that we have got to address.
We have got to make sure that we do not have artificial barriers to
the movement of product throughout the various regions of the country.
The reformulated product for different air quality standards has made
it very difficult for the big oil companies to move product from one
part of the country to the other, and that leads to regional
dislocations like we have in Chicago at the present time.
We have to have more refinery capacity. Some of our areas of the
country that are complaining about high heating oil prices and high
gasoline prices have not allowed refineries to be built. So we have to
have a comprehensive discussion that includes the environmentalists,
includes the oil companies, includes the consumers and distributors so
that we get a comprehensive national oil policy.
We are being held hostage now to some items that have come up,
because we have not addressed them for the future. It will take awhile,
but we cannot just blunder off into the future like we have in the last
few years.
I think we were lulled to sleep by the fact that world demand was
low, and we had historically low oil prices here in the U.S. Because we
had historically low oil prices, nobody wanted to do anything about a
policy. Well, that bit us this winter. It is biting us this summer. And
if we do not get a comprehensive policy, we will continue to have these
oil spikes.
The two features of my amendment will help. But we need to do more
than that. We need to have a comprehensive policy. I appreciate this
opportunity this evening to speak on this issue. It is something that
we need to continue to discuss, and we need to get our national oil
policy that brings all the stakeholders into play so that when this
comes together, it will make sense. It will make sense environmentally,
and it will make sense to the producers and the consumers in the
country.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am just reading the handout that our
colleagues will be getting as this vote is taken, and I want to call
everyone's attention to a particular paragraph. It reads: ``When prices
are high in the northeast, which uses a lot of home heating oil, the
Secretary of Energy may,'' not must, but may, ``disburse home heating
oil from a reserve.''
This reserve, as we all know all too well, does not exist today,
although current law allows it. This amendment would authorize the
creation of a Northeast reserve of up to 2 million barrels and allow it
to be tapped during a regional emergency. And I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. That is a very important observation.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Sherwood) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Lazio).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman from Pennsylvania
has the right to close. So he would use his time to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
has the right to close.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) for his leadership on this issue which
addresses a crisis that is facing the Northeast: high gas prices and
high fuel prices.
We experienced this during the winter when many of our most
vulnerable citizens, our seniors, our disabled, those in rural America
were suffering the most. Many of us have been calling for immediate
relief, including the rollback of the 4.3-cent Clinton-Gore gas tax at
the gas pump.
But this method of creating a regional reserve will help address an
issue, that has been a dramatic problem, in the years ahead. The
ability to try and provide more liquidity in the market, to lance the
boil of insufficient supply of oil, especially in our Northeast area
that is so dependent on both oil for transportation and for home fuel
oil.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I
urge our colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Indiana for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this amendment,
which is modeled in large part after legislation that I and many of my
colleagues introduced earlier this year.
This amendment will not only provide relief to residents in the
Northeast through the creation of a regional home heating oil reserve,
it will give the President the authority he needs to release oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to have an impact on the market price.
As the price of gasoline reaches $2 a gallon in Connecticut and $2.50
across the Midwest, there is no better time to address this issue. My
constituents and families across the Northeast have been hit with high
gasoline prices; and if we do not act, they will face high heating
bills during the cold winter months ahead. If this crisis is not
addressed now, the situation will only become worse. Most importantly,
the seniors and others in my district who live on fixed incomes cannot
afford these high prices. Having to choose between heating their home
and other life necessities is simply unacceptable.

[[Page H5272]]

Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, this crisis has gone on already
far too long. We have the means; we have the ability to solve this
problem. Let us act, and let us act now.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

{time} 2130

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this past winter, families across the
Northeast saw their budget stretched to the limit by skyrocketing home
heating oil costs. Over 50 percent of families in Connecticut depend on
oil to heat their homes in the winter months. For middle-class working
families in my State and throughout the Northeast, the increase in home
heating oil prices broke the bank.
I received thousands of calls from my constituents asking for help.
For example, I received a call from Thomas Marcarelli of East Haven. He
has a family with four children, ages three, six, seven and nine. In
order to pay for heating oil, he has had to send in his mortgage
payment late, cut back on his family's groceries, and drop his
thermostat by 10 degrees with children in the house to stretch out his
supply.
It appears that Mr. Marcarelli and his family and families across the
Northeast may face another very cold season. This winter they are
estimating that home heating oil will increase by another 10 percent.
My concern is, and I support this amendment, but we had an
opportunity several weeks ago with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) when he offered such an amendment and was defeated by two
votes. In terms of allowing the President the authority to release the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick) offered this amendment in committee just a few days ago.
I support this amendment, but my concern, as always, is that we try
to play politics with these issues when families in my part of the
country and families in other parts of the country are suffering
because, in fact, the Republican leadership has not allowed us to
create an energy policy in this country. It fails to reduce our
dependence on oil.
That is the direction that we need to move in. We need to support
this amendment tonight. But we also need to do something about solar
renewable energy. We also need to do something about providing the
opportunity for an energy policy that meets the needs of the people in
this country.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and myself in support of the Sherwood-
Markey-Barton amendment to reauthorize the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act and establish the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
On April 12 of this year, the House overwhelmingly approved the
Energy Policy Conservation Act reauthorization by a vote of 416 to 8.
This bill included language that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) authored to provide for the establishment of the heating oil
reserve in the Northeast. Unfortunately, these provisions have
languished at the hands of the Republican leadership in the Senate. The
administration supports these provisions, and these provisions have
bipartisan support here in the House.
The Democrats and some House Republicans are working to address our
high gas and heating oil prices by crafting bipartisan solutions.
Unfortunately, some members of the Republican leadership are using
tactics to prevent this Congress from implementing a long-term energy
strategy, one that will provide real energy security for all Americans.
This legislation would give the President the flexibility that he
needs to create a Northeast heating oil reserve and release the heating
oil from this reserve in the event we have a repetition of the type of
severe price spikes, supply disruptions or severe weather situations
that we saw last winter which drove home heating oil prices way up.
This provision helped assure that as we are reauthorizing EPCA, that
we are addressing both the needs of the producing States, who are
worried about what happens when prices go too low, and the consuming
States, who worry about what happens when prices get too high.
So if my colleagues voted aye for H.R. 2884, the EPCA reauthorization
to create a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, they should vote aye
today to assure that we can make the Reserve a reality.
I urge adoption of this bipartisan amendment.

Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair was in error a
minute ago in stating that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
had the right to close. Since he is not opposed to the amendment, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to close.
Without objection, the Chair will extend to each side 1 additional
minute. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), at the
conclusion, will have 1 minute remaining to close. We will add 1 minute
on the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), so he has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, that is perfect. I appreciate the
Chair's courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Markey amendment,
and I certainly believe that this is a step in the right direction.
Exorbitant gasoline prices are clearly a problem as we begin the
summer season. I am even more concerned about home heating oil costs
for next winter. In fact, the current inventory for home heating oil on
the East Coast is 40 percent lower than at this time last year.
We Democrats have called for urgent action on several fronts. We have
asked the Federal Trade Commission to expedite its investigation into
price gouging on the part of oil companies. Major oil companies have
nearly tripled their profits as a result of these price increases, from
$4.5 billion in profits in the first 3 months of 1999 to more than $12
billion in the same period this year.
Democrats have also urged the Republican leadership and Congress to
show some leadership and renew the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is
a key tool in our Nation's energy security, and the President must have
the authority to release or exchange oil reserves from the SPR.
Finally, we have called on the Congress to authorize the Northeast
Oil Reserve.
I am glad that we have finally gotten our colleagues in the majority
to move in this direction, despite all of our previous efforts to get
them to move in that direction. But we must also understand that the
Republican leadership is also responsible and has failed to provide
Americans with energy security. It has failed to reauthorize the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to date. It has failed to fund research and
development into alternative fuels and energy efficiency.
In fact, in the past 5 years, Republicans in Congress have funded
only 12 percent of the administration's request for new investments in
renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency initiatives. This
measly and irresponsible level of funding has been nearly $2 billion
short of the administration's request.
When they were not funding the requests, they were out trying to get
rid of the Department of Energy and selling off the reserve policy
itself. That would have been extremely detrimental if carried out as
proposed.
So I am glad that we begin on a course tonight that works with the
Democratic proposals that we have talked about and that clearly have
been copied here in the context of the work of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and to begin to work on energy security for
American families before we enter into a winter of discontent.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sherwood-Barton-Markey

[[Page H5273]]

amendment to replace section 606 of this bill with the text of H.R.
2884, which passed the House by a vote of 416 to 8 on April 12.
Among its provisions, H.R. 2884 authorized the creation of a two
million barrel home heating oil reserve in the Northeast.
Winter is a perennial event. It is sensible to prepare for the cold
weather, regardless of external circumstances.
We can help ensure stable home heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel
prices by creating a two million barrel reserve of home heating oil
that can be drawn down when fuel prices rise dramatically, as they did
last winter.
The recent increase in oil prices led fuel costs in some areas of the
Northeast to reach their highest point since the Gulf War. This winter
it cost some Connecticut residents as much as $2 for a gallon of home
heating oil, approximately double the cost of a year ago.
We should not force families to choose between heating their homes
and buying food during the winter months.
Establishing a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast, much like
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to help stabilize prices when fuel
costs rise dramatically, will ensure consumers have access to home
heating fuel at predictable, affordable prices.
I commend my colleagues for their hard work and leadership on this
issue.
Many industry experts agree an influx of home heating oil into the
market would drive prices down and allow families access to affordable
home heating oil in times of drastic price increase.
According to a 1998 Department of Energy report, the creation of a
home heating oil reserve will be an effective method of stabilized home
heating oil prices in the future, and the use of a Government-owned
reserve in the Northeast would provide benefits to consumers in the
Northeast and to the Nation at large.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we move forward with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this effort to ensure consumers have an adequate supply of home
heating fuel at reasonable, predictable prices throughout the year.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, the
ranking member, for giving me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment
authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), authorizing the establishment of a Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve.
This amendment is very similar to freestanding legislation which I
have authored which has some 98 cosponsors and similar to an amendment
that passed this body as part of a larger bill a little while ago.
What is important to understand is that we not only have to pass this
amendment tonight, but that we must go forward to adequately
appropriate money to make sure that this Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve becomes a reality.
We had a vote last week where we lost by two votes, but I think a
majority of the Members actually support it, and I hope we will support
the roughly $10 million that we need for appropriations.
It is no secret to anybody that this country is facing an energy
crisis from one end of the Nation to the other. We are seeing gasoline
prices skyrocketing. We know that the price of crude oil has more than
tripled since last year and is the highest that it has been since the
Gulf War. The reason that prices are high is because the supply for
gasoline is low. That obviously can mean only one thing; and that is,
if we do not adequately prepare now for next winter, we will have a
home heating oil disaster on our hands. That is why we have got to move
very quickly on this Home Heating Oil Reserve.
Let me just quote what USA Today said yesterday. USA Today yesterday
said, ``Those who heat with oil will shiver this winter, and pay a
premium. Just 15.3 million barrels of heating oil are stockpiled for
the East Coast, which uses 75 percent of the Nation's heating oil in
the winter. That's well down from the 41.3 million barrels on hand last
June.''
Mr. Chairman, we all know what happened last year. Home heating oil
prices were the highest they have ever been in history. Now we are
faced with a home heating oil stockpile that is 37 percent lower than
last year. It does not take a genius to figure out that we are setting
ourselves up for a huge heating oil crisis next year unless Congress
acts now.
I do not believe that the Home Heating Oil Reserve is going to solve
all of the problems. Far from it. But it is an important step forward.
We have got to do all that we can to make sure that the huge increase
in home heating oil prices that we experienced last winter does not
happen again. Too many elderly people, too many people on fixed incomes
just cannot afford to pay a doubling of the price that they paid the
previous year for oil.
I urge support for this very important amendment and thank the
sponsors of it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bipartisan, indeed tripartisan
amendment. It does some very important things. It reauthorizes the
strategic petroleum reserve through 2003. It is new discretion for the
Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from domestic stripper wells when
the price falls below $15, and it is new discretion for the Secretary
of Energy to disburse home heating oil for many future Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserves upon a regional emergency.
But more than that, we need to keep alive this bipartisan debate of
how we will have a coherent energy policy in this country, the
drilling, the refining, the production, and the distribution so that we
will not be held hostage again.
People do not want to put up with this forever. There is no reason in
this country that we have to. I urge passage of this amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Sherwood amendment. But I must ask why this House continues to
debate this issue? On April 13th of this year we voted 417-8 in favor
of H.R. 2884 a bill that would provide for a Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve.
This legislation, calls for the federal government to create a two
million barrel home heating oil reserve in New York--which could be
released by the President when oil prices rise sharply.
It's now 75 days later and the only thing that has happened is that
our gas prices have continued to rise.
We have been working hard to make sure that our neighbors and family
do not have to spend another winter being gouged by home heating oil
prices--which is why the Senate must act today.
Today I again ask for swift passage of H.R. 2884.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the Sherwood-Markey-Barton
amendment to reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and
establish a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
On April 12th of this year, the House approved the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act reauthorization by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 8.
This bill included language that I authored to provide for the
establishment of a heating oil reserve in the Northeast.
What we did on that legislation was to work out an agreement with the
Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee (Mr. Barton) that
constructed a kind of a classic Austin-Boston piece of legislation. The
gentleman from Texas was concerned about the fate of certain marginal
oil producers that operate so-called stripper wells. He noted that
during the 1998-1999 price drop, these domestic producers had the
proper set of incentives in order to continue to keep their wells open.
As a result, our Nation lost at least 500,000 barrels per day due to
the closure of hard-to-reopen stripper wells.
So, what the legislation says is that when the price of stripper well
oil goes below $15 a barrel, that there would be an authorization for
that oil to be purchased in order, one, to fill up the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve but, secondly, in order to keep the price of stripper
well oil high enough so that there is an incentive for that industry to
continue to make the proper investment in maintaining them as viable
domestic sources of energy for our country.

[[Page H5274]]

As well, the legislation made it possible for there to be constructed
a Regional Home Heating Oil Reserve in the northeastern part of the
United States. That is very important to those of us that live within a
region that does have, on an ongoing basis, the threat that we are
going to be cut off from that home heating oil supply. Last winter, our
region experienced a very severe spike the price of home heating oil,
and supplies were so tight that had the bad weather continued we faced
the very real prospect of being just a few days away from having no
supply on hand to meet the needs of our constituents. This was simply
unacceptable.
Now, maybe over the next 20 years, as Sable Island, this rich
resource of natural gas off of the Newfoundland coast comes on line,
and as our constituents convert over to gas, we may not need this kind
of protection. But that is not really going to be possible for another
5, 10, 15 years before it fully penetrates the entire Northeast. And by
the Northeast, I also mean Eastern Pennsylvania, all of New Jersey, and
the State of New York. Those are the parts of our country that are very
much dependent upon imported oil for home heating.

Now, we have, without question, the need to give the President the
flexibility that he needs to release the heating oil from the reserve
in the event we have a repetition of the type of severe price spikes,
supply disruptions or severe weather situations that we saw last winter
which drove home heating oil prices over the $2 a gallon level. This
provision helped assure that as we are reauthorizing EPCA, that we are
addressing both the needs of the producing States, who are worried
about what happens when prices go too low, and the consuming States,
who worry about what happens when prices get too high.
Now, H.R. 2884 is currently sitting over in the other body. So far,
the leadership in that body has failed to take any action on the bill.
I am informed, however, that there may be some efforts underway to work
out an agreement on both the stripper well and the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve provisions that will be acceptable to various
Senators and to the Administration. If so, perhaps we can soon send the
EPCA reauthorization to the President's desk that contains both the
stripper well and regional reserve provisions.
But what we also need to do, and what the amendment that gentleman
from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Texas, and myself would
accomplish, is to demonstrate to the other body that this House is
seriously committed to an EPCA reauthorization that contains both the
Northeast Home Heating Oil and stripper well provisions. And so, if you
were one of the 416 Members who on April 12th of this year voted for
H.R. 2884, the EPCA reauthorization to create a Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve, you should vote ``aye'' today to assure that we can make
the Reserve a reality. At the same time, I would hope and expect that
the Appropriators would recognize the urgent need to provide the
estimated $10 million in funding needed to get the Northeast Reserve up
and running. We cannot afford to wait and delay on this matter any
loner. It is time to act now.
I urge adoption of this bipartisan amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Sherwood) will be postponed.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the
gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to take these 5 minutes and to
speak relatively out of order.
I do not have an amendment, but I want to speak about a very, very
real and growing problem in my district back home dealing with water.
In almost any part of Texas, drive into a rural area and look for a
large pond; and when one finds one, it is likely to have been built,
funded and managed through a unique coalition of Federal, State, and
local agencies.
These projects provide many benefits, including flood control and
bettering water quality, but more importantly the improve water
availability in areas of perpetual drought.
No resource is more crucial than water. There is an increasing need
for water as the population and economy continues to grow rapidly.
Water shortage problems arise primarily as a result of limited access
to supplies and uneven distribution of water resources. It is these
small watershed projects that provide many communities the means to
maintain a viable water supply and literally keep the community alive.
Unfortunately, many of these projects do not always find their way to
completion on a smooth road. Time and time again I have seen projects
back home held up by multiple bureaucratic hurdles that in the end
seriously impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community
involved.

{time} 2145

For example, the City of Stamford, Texas, is facing a very serious
water availability problem in which the Army Corps of Engineers was
involved as required by law. The population of Stamford is
approximately 3,300. However, the city provides water to 10,000
residents in the area.
Lake Stamford is the sole source of water supply for the city, as
well as several surrounding communities and West Texas Utilities' 237
megawatt Paint Creek Steam Electric power station. The city is
operating under a 1-year supply of water.
A diversion project was formulated to supplement the inflow to Lake
Stamford. The diversion project would be located on Paint Creek and
would consist of a pump station, a pipeline and a channel dam, creating
a detention pond along the stream channels.
The city began by requesting a pre-application meeting to speed up
the process. However, this request was denied by the Corps on the
grounds that dams generally destroy and/or degrade riverine systems,
even those that do not permanently impound water.
As such, they should be avoided when a practical alternative exists.
The applicant, City of Stamford, should evaluate alternatives to
supplementing its water supply. Obviously, the authors of this
regulatory requirement have never set foot in west Texas, as finding an
alternative water source is about as likely as finding an udder on a
bull.
After 6 months of jumping through hoops and over hurdles, including
the proposed mitigation of 2,200 acres of mesquite trees, a species and
often eradicated throughout the State, the city was faced with their
next obstacle, an on-site assessment of the project area to evaluate
the culture resource sites identified through a required archeological
survey which was requested to discuss the project's potential impact on
the aquatic environment and formulate possible alternatives that might
help reduce the project's adverse environmental impact.
As expected, a site was identified, a site which if left alone would
continue to wash away as a result of normal creek flow regardless of
whether or not this project was implemented. However, the city is now
required to mitigate this site as a mandate by the National Historic
Preservation Act. As a result of this untimely process, and because of
some recent spring rains as recorded by the USGS, the City of Stamford
has missed out on a 2-year water supply increase of approximately 4,400
acre feet of water because the infrastructure was not in place.
Opportunities to collect water come rarely in west Texas, and it is
painful for those of us from the area to watch the opportunities flow
away from us unnecessarily.
Now, Stamford is not alone in this problem. Most, if not all, of the
communities in my district are facing serious water availability
concerns. The cities of Throckmorton and Winters have a 118-day supply
of drinking water remaining with no other options, and the cities of
Abilene and Snyder are currently working on potential solutions to
their water shortage problem.
Each of these cases will likely involve the Corps, as well as the
numerous laws and regulations that require the Corps to dot every ``I''
and cross every ``T.''
Granted, it is important to carefully scrutinize projects ensuring
that the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the

[[Page H5275]]

National Historic Preservation Act are fulfilled; but 118 days does not
allow much room for bureaucratic red tape, especially when one is
dealing with an emergency situation involving the economic stability of
a community, in addition to people's lives and well-being.
The situation at hand is not entirely the fault of the Corps. We in
Congress need to be mindful of the legislation passed. It is not
implemented in a vacuum. A common sense approach to emergency
situations like this, I hope, will get the attention of this committee
and the committees of jurisdiction so that we might in fact find a
solution to a very, very real problem in the near future.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hansen

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen:
Page 39, after line 19, insert the following new section:
Sec. 607. No funds appropriated under this Act shall be
expended for the purpose of processing, granting, or
otherwise moving forward a license, permit, or other
authorization or permission for the interim storage of spent
nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste, or high-level
radioactive waste on any reservation lands of the Skull
Valley Band of Goshute Indians.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting that we just had an
amendment earlier in the day about sludge going into a certain State.
It was amazing how many people stood up and were incensed at the idea
that they may have sludge go into their State.
I find it interesting the State of Utah right now a lot of people
want to put in high-level nuclear waste, and why is that? That is
because many of us voted in both Houses to put a permanent place for
nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. However, the President chose to veto
this bill, another example of the poor, irresponsible program that they
have.
So where do we go now? We do not have a place to put it, because the
President, after we spent literally billions of dollars, determined,
oh, I am going to veto this. Obviously, for political reasons; but I
guess he has a right to do that. So a group of five big polluters
called the Private Fuel Storage, who have all of their stuff in the
East right now, decided what they would do is they would go to the
West.
So they went to a place called the Goshute Indian Reservation, that
is Skull Valley. Maybe some of my colleagues think it is a God-forsaken
place, but a lot of folks live out there. We have a lot of military
issues out in that particular area. And they decided that they could go
in there and put a temporary site down.
What is temporary? Four hundred years? I have never seen one of these
temporary sites that ever stayed temporary, at least not in my
lifetime. Maybe that will happen.
Now in this situation, they decided what they are going to do. Did
anyone check out the water source to see if any of these aquifers would
fill up? No, not anybody.
What about the idea that the Utah Testing and Training Range, one of
the largest testing and training ranges in the world, is right there? I
want to point out that 1 mile away from this site a cruise missile
crashed not too long ago. Numerous F-16s, F-4s and others have crashed
there. It does not seem to bother these people who have gotten these
things in the East.
Now as I look at my friends in the East, I find it very interesting
that they have never been to our State, but they want to put bills in
to tell us how much wilderness we can have. They want to tell us where
we can have legacy highways. They want to tell us where we can do
various other things, but no one bothers to come out and see it or even
care. But now that we have the trash, they want to get rid of their
nuclear waste. Let us put it out in Utah; that is a great place to put
it. Forget about these other things. Let us put it there.
Now it just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is about time that the
people out there had a say in their own destiny, that they would have
the opportunity to say what they want and what they do not want.
I find it interesting that of these five big polluters, this Private
Fuel Storage, not one volt from those areas goes into the West. It all
goes east of the Mississippi River. So they get the advantage of the
wattage, they get the advantage of the volts, and we get the crap that
is left over, if I may say that.
So it comes down to the idea, Mr. Chairman, I personally feel that
this amendment is worth doing; but my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), has convinced me that maybe I ought to give
it some thought, and so I am thinking about it.
Let me say this: the solicitor general of the Department of Interior
has made a ruling that says the language we put in the authorization
bill last year prohibits any of these things from happening until the
Department of Interior and the Department of Defense gives a study to
this. So why are they even looking at it? That has not been
accomplished. In fact, it has not even been started.
Let me add one other thing. I am asking the IG of the Department of
Interior to look into this thing. I think they are taking advantage of
some of our Indian friends out there. In my opinion, there are some
financial irregularities, and I want a full investigation of it before
they move out on this particular area.
So, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, I would hope that people from the
East who love to tell the West how to run our affairs, what we can do,
how we can handle our land but they never bother to come out, I wish
they were all standing here now saying the beautiful area that we put
all these bills in is now going to be inundated with high-level nuclear
waste. I do not see them here, but I guess that is their privilege.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen) yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do consider him one of my dear friends here, but I
have to oppose the amendment and would urge him to withdraw the
amendment.
We should not prevent the NRC from licensing nuclear waste disposal
sites. It is very difficult to find suitable sites, and in this
instance we should certainly not interfere with the established
procedures of the NRC. I would hope that the investigation that has
been mentioned by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) would shed light
on where we should go with this in the future, but let us not kill it
tonight.
Mr. HANSEN. Would the gentleman like to have it in his district?
Mr. PACKARD. I do not know that there is any room in my district for
it. It is already filled with houses.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Utah?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for construction of the National Ignition Facility.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a co-sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Ryan-
Kucinich

[[Page H5276]]

amendment. I rise in support of nuclear nonproliferation and concern
for U.S. taxpayers.
The National Ignition Facility, NIF, is planned to be the most
powerful laser in the world, a super laser designed to test U.S.
nuclear weapons through laboratory simulations of nuclear explosions.
The construction of this facility will promote the expansion of
nuclear weapons testing at a time when the United States should be
working toward nonproliferation both here and internationally.
I strongly support cutting $74.1 million, the construction budget for
the National Ignition Facility. This investment in nuclear weapons
research capabilities runs counter to achieving a comprehensive test
ban treaty and undermines efforts worldwide to reduce the spread of
nuclear weapons.
The NIH would enhance the capability for design of new nuclear
weapons and modification of existing weapons. Laboratory directors
might then agree that some of the new nuclear weapons cannot be
reliably certified without full scale nuclear testing, providing a
rationale for future testing.
The creation of new nuclear weapons may serve to ignite a new arms
race.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this project has been underway for 5 years now. To
interrupt the ongoing construction project, I think, would be very
inappropriate, would be a very wasteful effort with monies that have
already been expended. I would strongly urge that we oppose the
amendment and allow us to continue the project. The committee has
provided $80 million for the National Ignition Facility in this bill.
This is less than the Department of Energy wanted. The Department
requested $95 million, but the committee did not believe that the
Department had provided sufficient information on the new cost
schedule. Therefore, we funded it, however, at $80 million. We
certainly are not passing judgment on the quality of the project at
this time, but we should not take the money away from it.
I also understand that there are several Members that wish to speak
on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher).
(Mrs. TAUSCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Packard) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich-Ryan
amendment. This amendment would eliminate funding for construction of
the National Ignition Facility, called the NIF, at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. It would waste nearly $1 billion that
has already been spent on development of this important project. It
would contradict the action this House took last month when we
authorized $175 million for the NIF.
Most importantly, this amendment would severely cripple our Nation's
arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
The United States has made a commitment to end nuclear testing, and
that commitment is a fundamental tenet of our national security. In the
absence of testing, Mr. Chairman, the only way to maintain an
effective, secure, reliable nuclear deterrent is through a science-
based stockpile stewardship program.
Mr. Chairman, the NIF is the cornerstone of that program. The NIF is
the best way to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear
weapons and to promote arms control and nonproliferation.
I urge my colleagues very strongly to oppose the Kucinich-Ryan
amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this NIF project is over budget. It is behind schedule.
It has experienced several technical difficulties and problems. It has
been criticized by the other labs, and it has been plagued with
mismanagement.
For example, first in the FY 2000 energy and water appropriations
bill, the committee asked the DOE for a rebaselining of costs by June 1
of 2000 for this year's appropriations. However, the DOE has pushed off
this deadline until mid-September, conveniently past the appropriations
date.
Given the fact that the GAO report has cited so many problems with
the management and the construction of this facility, which DOE
acknowledges, these overruns should not be continued. Congress should
not appropriate these funds until we have that rebaselining report.
Second, a GAO report again was requested by the House Committee on
Science last September in 1999. However, we still do not have this
report yet, but we have found some preliminary findings from the draft
report which is imminently due, yet not in time for this appropriations
bill.
It shows that the cost estimates are still being overrun. It shows
that a project management assessment was required as part of the DOD
authorization bill in this year, and that has not been done.
It shows that this project began as a $1.2 billion project in 1997
and then slipped to $2.1 billion in the year 2000, according to the
DOE. Now the GAO is telling us this thing is going to cost us between
$3.6 billion and $4 billion.

{time} 2200

This has tripled in costs over the last 3 years alone, the management
problems, the cost overruns, the fact that the other laboratories,
Sandia specifically, is saying this ought to be scaled back, because it
does pilfer from other laboratory programs, which seeks to serve the
same purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the NIF is esoteric physics, but it is
essential to the quest for reliability of nuclear weapons. If my
colleagues believe, as I do that we should forebear testing and one day
ratify the comprehensive test band treaty, believe me canceling NIF is
not the way to do it.
What does the NIF do? The NIF essentially creates the conditions
inside of a thermonuclear weapon to an extent we have never been able
to explore before, and it helps us to ensure the reliability of our
nuclear weapons to validate these complex computer models that we have
developed and know that they are reliable.
Mr. Chairman, if we ask anyone to list the challenges to our
security, almost everyone will say that this spread of fissile
materials and nuclear weapons leads to less. One way to curb the
proliferation of nuclear weapons is to stop the testing that proves
unfeasible, but it is hard for us to advocate that others should not
test if we test.
The CTBT, therefore, is one of the key pieces to this puzzle, but
politically, the CTBT is unlikely to be ratified in country until we
are satisfied that our arsenal is reliable and secure and to that end,
the NIF is essential; that is why we must proceed with this project and
defeat this amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, many experts agree that the National Ignition Facility
has no relevance to its goal of maintaining the nuclear arsenal. Edward
Teller, better known as the Father of the Atomic Bomb when asked about
the NIF's usefulness in maintaining nuclear weapons he replied, none
whatsoever.
Los Alamos's theoretical weapon physicist Rod Schultz wrote that the
NIF supposed importance to the weapons stockpile does not reflect the
technical judgment of the nuclear weapons designed community.
Eliminating funding for the National Ignition Facility does not cut
funding for research and development for any future commercial energy
technology.
Mr. Chairman, our future energy path is clearly in renewable
technologies, such as fuel cells, wind and solar power. As the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has said, NIF is a budgetary black
hole. The Department of Energy's initial estimate of NIF's cost
overruns were about $350 million,

[[Page H5277]]

but current cost overruns estimates from the DOE stand between $750
million to $1 billion, 100 percent more than originally estimated.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment. I do think
the NIF is an important program. Clearly there have been some very
serious problems that have angered everyone in this body, and clearly
have angered the Secretary of Energy; that is why a penalty was
imposed, that is why $55 million of the proposed $95 million additional
investment that needs to be made is going to come out of the hide of
the contractor essentially Lawrence Livermore.
I do think that the Department of Energy, finding a very serious
problem, is trying to take the appropriate corrective action, I do not
believe the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is in
the best interests of our national security or the testing program and
do oppose the amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It does not cut off the
research and development. I am not suggesting that I am opposing the
goal of this project, what it does it says do not go forward with the
construction because of these amazing mismanagement problems, because
of these phenomenal cost overruns, because of the fact that this
project has been delayed in its implementation due to these problems
for years.
What this amendment does, it says if you cannot build the
construction, work on the R&D. Mr. Chairman, $914 million has been
spent on this, yet 5 percent of the infrastructure and the laser
components are completed.
This amendment simply says let us watch our taxpayers' dollars.
Congress asked the DOE to actually take a look at this. Congress asked
the GAO to get back to us to see if these problems had been dealt with.
We have not heard from the DOE. We have not heard from the GAO yet. I
would suggest that on behalf of our taxpayers that we represent, let us
wait till we hear from them before obligating this money, and let us
spend it on research and development in the meantime.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Ryan amendment would take $74 million from the National Ignition
Facility and terminate the project; that is premature. We are aware
that the project has not run smoothly, and that it has had its problems
both management and fiscally on schedule, but some of this funding will
be needed, whether the committee agrees to complete NIF or not.
If the decision is made to cancel NIF, the funds will be needed for
termination costs.
For the last remaining few seconds that I have, I will yield to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) because of the effect it would have on the nuclear
deterrent power of the United States.
The National Ignition Facility is a cornerstone requirement of the
stockpile stewardship program and the only facility that would allow
the experimental study of fusion burning in the laboratory. The
capability is an essential element of our ability to maintain our
nuclear deterrent into the future.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that let us not kill the project
tonight; the jury is still out on it. I urge a no vote on the
amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Ryan-Kucinich
amendments to cut construction funds for the National Ignition
Facility.
Every time this project comes before us, its costs rise and its
scientific rationale grows more dubious.
Criticism of NIF has come from groups as diverse as the Friends of
the Earth and the Armed Services Committee.
This project has already sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars while
endangering our environment and sabotaging efforts to reduce nuclear
proliferation.
The National Ignition Facility represents the flagship of the
Stockpile Stewardship nuclear weapons program. That is no great honor.
This project, together with National Missile Defense, symbolizes the
American failure to lead the way on global nuclear arms control.
If the National Ignition Facility continues to fail to achieve its
stated goal of ignition, it will remain a financial quagmire that has
depleted badly needed financial resources. If it succeeds, it threatens
to send the arms race spiraling to an ever higher level.
Now is the time to seriously evaluate this program. We should not put
more money into construction for a project that is neither necessary
nor productive.
This project is now approximately one billion dollars over budget. It
is 5 years behind schedule.
Ultimately, there are economic, geopolitical, and environmental
reasons to oppose continued construction of the National Ignition
Facility.
Economically, NIF is over budget and over due.
Geoplitically, this effort to create thermonuclear explosions in a
laboratory setting undermines U.S. efforts to reduce nuclear weapons
across the globe.
Environmentally, Californians are already justifiably concerned about
the release of tritium into their environment. Increasing nuclear waste
is not the solution.
I repeat, it is time to seriously reevaluate this program. I urge
your support for the Ryan-Kucinich amendments.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Kucinich. It is simply too early
to cut funding for the National Ignition Facility. We all realize that
there are problems with the project. I am just as concerned as my
colleagues here with the troubles that have beset this project. The
subcommittee Members and myself are keeping a watchful eye on each and
every development at NIF. The Department of Energy has indeed
determined that NIF will take longer than projected and cost more than
originally expected. But the final cost and schedule are yet to be
determined.
Those increases must be viewed in light of the fact that the National
Ignition Facility is a key component of our stockpile stewardship
program. With over 60 times the energy of any laser in existence, NIF
will provide us with unprecedented insights into the science of nuclear
fusion. The NIF project will provide vital information on our weapons
stockpile that would have previously required expensive underground
testing. In addition, NIF will offer us some exceptional science
related to the underlying physics of nuclear fusion--a source of power
that could potentially fuel our future.
The Department of Energy is working hard to straighten out the
difficulties with the NIF project. It is currently undertaking a
thorough evaluation of this project and considering every alternative.
It has already been determined that the underlying science associated
with NIF is sound.
Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding
for this program. We need to get all the facts before proceeding--
especially when the issue is the security of our national defenses. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston.
Page 39, after line 19, insert the following new section:
Sec. 607. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to pay the salaries of employees of the
Department of Energy who handle classified information
related to computer equipment containing sensitive national
security information at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and have
refused to take a lawfully authorized lie detector test
related to their official duties.

Modification to Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to change
Amendment No. 10 to another amendment that is at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston:
Page 39, after line 19, add the following new section:
``Sec. . None of the funds in this Act may be used to pay
the salary of any employee of

[[Page H5278]]

the Department of Energy at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory who has failed to undergo a polygraph examination
pursuant to section 3154(e) of Public Law 106-65.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is part of the continuing effort of this House on
a bipartisan basis to reign in maybe the loose security or the mistakes
we have all made in the security at the Los Alamos lab, and this is not
directed at anything. This is supposed to be a constructive amendment.
The idea behind it is, we had the situation, as all Members of the
House well know and all Members of the House are concerned about, that
has to do with the disappearance of two highly sensitive disks,
computer disks, that contained nuclear secrets. The disks disappeared
and reappeared, and during that period of time, we are not exactly sure
what happened.
We do know that they searched behind a copying machine, and then
later, they researched behind there and found out that they were there.
It appears that they were kind of stuck in after the search. What we
are trying to do as a Government is to investigate this and yet much to
our dismay, I believe on a bipartisan basis, we have employees out
there who have refused to take a polygraph test.
Mr. Chairman, we have a precedent now. We have a law that can require
employees in sensitive areas to take polygraph tests and certainly
employees who are dealing with nuclear secrets are in highly sensitive
areas, and what this simply says is that if you will not take a
polygraph test and you are working in a highly-sensitive area, we are
not going to pay you. We are urging employees and have the lawful right
to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Kingston
amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think it is
probably micromanaging to a degree, but I am willing to accept the
amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) to speak on this amendment, who is a member of
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). Let me just say there are
people, a number of people, at the laboratories who have clearances and
access to classified material; that is, nuclear material or nuclear
design material. Also what we know is special access programs, it is
absolutely imperative that we have the right to polygraph those folks,
and it is absolutely equitable and fair that those who would refuse to
take the polygraphs cannot be paid, cannot be employed in this
capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman. I think it is an excellent
amendment. I thank the subcommittee for agreeing to accept this
amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunt) and I
thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for their
support of this amendment.
I want to say that what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, on a
bipartisan basis is send a signal out to any employee who works at Los
Alamos in a sensitive area who refuses to take a polygraph test that we
believe the security of our Nation is more important than their
personal pride or whatever conflict they may have that prevents them
from doing this. We are just saying, you have to do it, that is part of
taking care of our nuclear secrets.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) In General.--None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to pay any basic pay of an
individual who simultaneously holds or carries out the
responsibilities of--
(1) a position within the National Nuclear Security
Administration; and
(2) a position within the Department of Energy not within
the Administration.
(b) Exceptions for Administrator for Nuclear Security and
Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.--The limitation in
subsection (a) shall not apply to the following cases:
(1) The Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security
serving as the Administrator for Nuclear Security, as
provided in section 3212(a)(2) of the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2402(a)(2)).
(2) The director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
provided for under the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Executive
Order serving as the Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors,
as provided in section 3216(a)(1) of such Act (50 U.S.C.
2406(a)(1)).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the National Nuclear Secret Administration was put in
place by this Congress to be an independent agency within the
Department of Energy; their sole purpose was to secure our most vital
national nuclear secrets.
My amendment does one simple thing, it requires the Secretary of the
Energy to properly implement the National Nuclear Security
Administration. It does so by prohibiting the practice of dual hatting
that the Secretary of Energy engaged in to circumvent the law that this
Congress passed and that the President signed last year.
Dual hatting involves the giving of titles and responsibility for the
National Nuclear Security Administration to current employees of the
Department of Energy, thereby removing the independent status of the
agency.
Removing dual hatting is an idea that the Committee on Appropriations
was leading toward in its own report. The report says that the
committee encourages the new administrator and deputy administrator for
defense programs to review the urgency for organization and management
changes in the NNSA headquarters and field structure. It goes on to say
that simply renaming the same employees to the same organizational
structure, the same management culture will not address the fundamental
program that Congress sought to address by creating this new entity.
Finally, the committee strongly urges the new administrator and
deputy administrator to use this opportunity to make bold and strategic
improvements.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, believe that we should not focus on the recent
security failures within the current nuclear laboratories complex.
Instead, I believe we should focus on strengthening the Department of
Energy's ability to protect this Nation's national security.
We must manage the risks associated with the development of the
nuclear technology. Mr. Chairman, the other body recently approved a
new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. I
urge my colleagues to join me and give him the tools needed to
effectively protect our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5279]]

Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to the amendment. This is
an issue that should be addressed and has been addressed by the
authorizing committee. The House Committee on Armed Services did not
include this provision in the bill that passed this House recently.

{time} 2215

The Senate has included the provision in the Defense authorization
bill; and, therefore, it will clearly be a conferencible item between
the House and Senate on the defense authorization bill. This House
should not preempt the conference committee in doing their job. Let us
leave it to those that have the responsibility, and that is the
authorizers.
We believe this amendment should be addressed by the authorizing
committee, it will be addressed in the conferencing of the Defense
authorization bill, and for that reason, I urge the Members to allow
that process to take its rightful place; and I urge the Members to vote
against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ryun
amendment, which would restrict the ability of the Department of Energy
to maintain the country's nuclear stockpile. The amendment would
prohibit the Department from dual-hatting certain senior physicists and
nuclear weapon designers and would mandate certain job functions
encompassed in the requirement of the Defense authorization bill to
split the Department of Energy into two independent organizations.
The practical problem inherent in the gentleman's amendment is that
it is not enforceable. Less than 20 Federal employees are currently
dual-hatted in the Department of Energy. These officials are the core
of the nuclear weapons program, and these scientists and military
officers are not attempting to politicize the Department; they are men
and women who won the Cold War.
What the amendment is attempting to do is to set a date certain by
which these people must be replaced. Hiring permanent replacements for
these officials is not a frivolous issue. Replacing nuclear weapon
experts takes time and very careful consideration.
Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed the new chief of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, General Gordon. General
Gordon has a Ph.D. in nuclear physics and is a former deputy director
of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Gordon should not be forced
to hire 18 new senior government executives in literally the next 30 to
60 days. I do not believe that it is a sound proposition, and I am
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the
House Committee on Armed Services does not oppose this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the Chairman of the National Security Special
Oversight Panel of the Department of Energy Reorganization, who has
been a leader in this effort, watching over our nuclear secrets.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for
yielding me this time and for all of his contributions to the special
oversight panel.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the bill to reorganize the
Department of Energy last year, it was clear from the language of the
law and the intention behind the law that we intended to have some
separation between the nuclear weapons complex and the rest of the
Department of Energy. That is exactly what the President's foreign
intelligence advisory board recommended as well as many other studies.
We did exactly what his commission recommended.
Yet, in implementing the law, the current Department has dual-hatted
several positions. What that means is they give one person two jobs,
one job inside the nuclear weapons complex and one job outside the
nuclear weapons complex. I would tell my friend from Indiana, it is not
nuclear weapons experts. These are procurement people, they are
lawyers, they are security and counterintelligence people.
The American Law Division at CRS has said that this dual-hatting
practice is against the law we passed, period. The Ryun amendment
simply enforces the law that we passed. The gentleman is correct, it is
less than 20 people that this applies to, but let me tell my colleagues
who one of those persons is.
In the bill that we passed last year, we created a Chief of Defense
for Nuclear Security whose job explicitly in the law is to set up
policies and implement security policies at our nuclear laboratories
and plants. That position has been held by a part-time person. That
position has been held by a guy who has a job inside and a job outside
in the rest of the Department of Energy.
Now, I would suggest that that is partly responsible for the serious
security problems that we have had. We have not had a full-time person
looking at security inside the NNSA.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops dual-hatting. It says we have to
have a full-time person dealing with security; we have to have a full-
time person dealing with counterintelligence, a full-time procurement
officer, a full-time lawyer inside the NSA.
I would also say to my friend from Indiana that I suggest General
Gordon looks forward to the opportunity of putting his own people in
here so that he can have them devoted fully to the nuclear weapons
complex, rather than have other responsibilities in the rest of the
Department.
Mr. Chairman, this nuclear security breach at Los Alamos is a very,
very serious matter. Certainly, there are other proposals to deal with
it, but I think we have to be very careful and be responsible in what
we do. Knee-jerk reactions are not appropriate.
It is true that the authorizers are dealing with several provisions
associated with this, but we should not miss any opportunity to stand
up and say, when Congress passes a law and the President signs a law,
it ought to be enforced. We should not allow any administration to get
away with not enforcing the law, particularly when it has such serious
security consequences for our country.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought to be passed, and it ought to be
passed strongly.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to simply reiterate this is being done and taken care of by the
authorizers both in the House and the Senate. Let us leave it to them
to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) will
be postponed.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
For the benefit of the Members, I believe this is the last business
before we call for the series of votes. I am not aware of any other
amendments, but I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee, for a very short colloquy.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I report to the gentleman that today
it was emphasized to me that the Department of Energy is readying a
``Power Scorecard'' that disparages energy produced by nuclear means,
coal and natural gas. I ask that as we move forward to and through the
conference that the matter be investigated and addressed, if necessary.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman bringing that to our attention, and we will certainly look at
the issue as we go into conference; and hopefully, we can resolve it.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

[[Page H5280]]

by Mr. Sherwood of Pennsylvania; and an amendment by Mr. Ryun of
Kansas.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Foley

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 71,
noes 356, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 337]

AYES--71

Abercrombie
Blumenauer
Capps
Capuano
Conyers
Cox
DeFazio
Delahunt
Deutsch
Doggett
Eshoo
Foley
Frank (MA)
Gilman
Goodling
Goss
Green (WI)
Hoeffel
Horn
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kelly
Kingston
Kucinich
Lazio
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Metcalf
Miller, George
Minge
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pombo
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shays
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Waters
Wexler
Woolsey

NOES--356

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Cook
Lantos
Markey
Martinez
McIntosh
Stark
Vento

{time} 2248

Messrs. GANSKE, WISE, LEVIN, and WAXMAN, Ms. BERKLEY and Ms. DeGETTE
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HOEFFEL, TIERNEY, McGOVERN, METCALF, KUCINICH, BLUMENAUER,
GILMAN, INSLEE, OWENS, SUNUNU, DELAHUNT, PAYNE, COX, UDALL of Colorado,
McDERMOTT, LEWIS of Georgia and OLVER, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms.
ESHOO, Ms. SANCHEZ, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. McKINNEY, and Ms.
WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement By The Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 249, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 338]

AYES--176

Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Brown (OH)
Burr
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cox
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dooley
Duncan
Ehlers
Eshoo
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Kelly
Kingston
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Norwood
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Petri
Porter
Portman
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)

[[Page H5281]]

Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Tiahrt
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Walsh
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Woolsey

NOES--249

Abercrombie
Allen
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Cardin
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coburn
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Shaw
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Bonior
Cook
Ganske
Markey
Martinez
McIntosh
Stark
Taylor (MS)
Vento

{time} 2257

Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 2300

(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to speak out of order for
one minute.)

Baseball Practice

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, to all my colleagues on the Democratic side
who were planning to be at baseball practice at 7:00 in the morning,
our first practice will be at 7 a.m. on Thursday morning, not 7 a.m.
tomorrow morning.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
The good news on the Republican side, we will not practice tomorrow
morning due to wet ground.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherwood

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Sherwood) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 339]

AYES--393

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)

[[Page H5282]]

Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--33

Ballenger
Burton
Coble
Coburn
Cox
Cunningham
Doolittle
Duncan
Goss
Gutknecht
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hostettler
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Miller, Gary
Paul
Pease
Pitts
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Souder
Sununu
Tancredo
Toomey
Walden
Wu

NOT VOTING--8

Barcia
Cook
Ganske
Markey
Martinez
McIntosh
Stark
Vento

{time} 2305

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 340]

AYES--239

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Pallone
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)

NOES--187

Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Cook
Ganske
Lantos
Markey
Martinez
McIntosh
Stark
Vento

{time} 2312

Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. ENGLISH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.

____________________